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)
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?