Overturf v. Brewer et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 47 Motion for Reconsideration. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/13/13. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 George Wilson Overturf, 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 Janice K. Brewer, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-1856-PHX-GMS (DKD) ORDER 18 Plaintiff George Wilson Overturf, who was confined in the Arizona State Prison 19 Complex, Central Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant 20 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to 21 amend.1 (Doc. 1, 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court also 22 dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff requested and 23 was granted several extensions of time to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 22, 24, 24 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 38.) On 25 November 26, 2012, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state 26 a claim and dismissed this action. (Doc. 43.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 27 1 28 On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address reflecting that he is currently held in Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail. (Doc. 48.) 1 44.) Plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion for leave to amend seeking additional 2 opportunities to file an amended complaint in which to attempt to state a claim. (Doc. 45.) 3 In an Order filed on December 4, 2012, the Court denied that motion. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff 4 subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Second Amended 5 Complaint. (Doc. 47.) That motion will be denied. 6 Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented 7 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 8 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. 9 No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A 10 motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had 11 already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon 12 Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be 13 directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309 14 (D. Ariz. 1992). 15 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration for various reasons and his disagreement with the 16 Court’s conclusions. Plaintiff disagrees with two footnotes concerning prescription labels. 17 He contends that the Court erred in dismissing claims against Chavez based on failure to 18 comply with prison regulations. Plaintiff also asserts that he did not receive certain 19 prescriptions on various dates. In addition, he asserts that malfeasance by Romero, French, 20 and Swindle could be proven with discovery.2 Plaintiff also apparently disagrees with the 21 Court’s attempt to address Plaintiff’s allegations chronologically. He otherwise complains 22 about various points and submits new exhibits. Plaintiff has not pointed to newly-discovered 23 evidence, nor has he demonstrated that the Court committed clear error or an intervening 24 change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff asks the Court to rethink what it has already 25 thought through. That is not a basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for 26 reconsideration will be denied. 27 28 2 Malfeasance, absent more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. -2- 1 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc. 47.) 2 DATED this 13th day of March, 2013. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?