Jenkins v. Bolton et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 18 Motion to for Joinder to the extent any relief is sought herein. (See document for details). Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 1/13/12.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8

Junies A. Jenkins,
9

Plaintiff,
10

vs.
11

Susan R. Bolton, et al.,
12

Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-2046-PHX-RCB (DKD)
ORDER

14

Plaintiff Junies A. Jenkins, an inmate in the Arizona Department of Corrections

15

(ADC), filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court, matter No. CV2011-014660,

16

alleging claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388

17

(1971), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.1 (Doc. 1.) On October 20, 2011, the United States

18

removed the Complaint to federal court on behalf of U.S. District Court Judges Bolton,

19

Teilborg, Bury, and Rosenblatt, who were each named as Defendants. (Id.) In an Order filed

20

on December 9, 2011, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action without leave to

21

amend. (Doc. 14.) Apparently prior to receiving a copy of that Order, Plaintiff filed two

22

documents captioned as “Petition for Reconsideration Petition for Court Order” and “Motion

23

to Joinder by Supplimental [sic] Amendment Pleading.” (Doc. 17-19.) On December 23,

24
25
26
27
28

1

As noted previously, Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b) for cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. See
Jenkins v. Veliz, No. CV 95-0142-TUC-RMB (D. Ariz. June 21, 1995) (doc. 13); Jenkins
v. Veliz, CV 95-0711-TUC-RMB (SLV) (D. Ariz. December 19, 1995) (doc. 3); Jenkins v.
Bohland, CV 06-938-PHX-SRB (DKD) (D. Ariz. July 17, 2006) (doc. 12); Jenkins v.
Marlowe, CV 06-0160-TUC-DCB (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2006) (doc. 5).

1

2011, apparently after receiving a copy of the December 9, 2011 Order, Plaintiff filed a

2

“Notice of Appreciation” regarding the dismissal of this action. (Doc. 19.) To the extent that

3

any relief is sought in any of these filings, such relief will be denied.

4

In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Arizona

5

Department of Corrections to provide copies of records and opposes a motion to dismiss filed

6

by the Defendants, which was denied as moot. Plaintiff attaches copies of requests to ADC

7

officials seeking copies of his mental health records.

8

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

9

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

10

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

11

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

12

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

13

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

14

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

15

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

16

(D. Ariz. 1992).

17

In his Complaint, Plaintiff in part attempted state law claims for exploitation of a

18

vulnerable adult, apparently referring to himself, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes

19

(ARS) §§ 46-455 and 14-5101. Because Plaintiff failed to state a claim or to even allege

20

facts that could plausibly give rise to a claim for violation of his federal rights in his

21

Complaint, the Complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. Even if the attachments

22

to the current motion were arguably relevant to Plaintiff’s state law claims, they are not

23

relevant to his federal claims and they afford no basis for reconsideration. Otherwise,

24

Plaintiff has not alleged or shown that the Court committed clear error or that it’s prior ruling

25

was manifestly unjust. Plaintiff also has not alleged or shown an intervening change in

26

controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

27
28

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for joinder, in which he seeks to add a Defendant to
-2-

1

this case. That motion will be denied as moot.

2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and joinder and his

3

Notice of Appreciation are denied to the extent that any relief is sought therein. (Doc. 17-

4

19.)

5

DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-