Garcia v. Glendale Police Department et al

Filing 143

ORDER - denying 142 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. ORDERED denying as moot 141 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Joint Pretrial Final Proposed Order. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/25/2014.(TLB)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robert A. Garcia, No. CV 11-02260-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Glendale Police Department, et al., ORDER 13 14 15 16 17 Defendants. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Robert A. Garcia’s Response (Doc. 142) to Defendant’s previous Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 119), styled as a “Motion for Rehearing.”1 On March 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 138) granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. Judgment was entered that 18 same day. (Doc. 139). Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s March 24, 2014 19 “Motion for Rehearing” as a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s previous order under 20 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and/or 60(b).2 21 Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: (1) the movant 22 presents newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial 23 decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law has 24 occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that, on March 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Joint Pretrial Final Proposed Order (Doc. 141). Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case without prejudice ten days prior (Doc. 138), Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is moot. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) apply to reconsideration of “final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders.” Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrs., 869 F.2d 461, 466–67 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 (9th Cir. 1993). A party should not file a motion to reconsider to ask a court “to rethink 2 what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. 3 Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). “No motion for 4 reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support 5 of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. 6 Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The Court ordinarily will deny “a 7 motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of 8 9 10 11 12 new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Additionally, any motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) must “be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Here, Plaintiff timely filed his Motion for Reconsideration on March 24, 2014. Plaintiff does not contend that there is newly discovered previously unavailable evidence 13 14 15 16 17 or that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, he disagrees with several of the Court’s legal conclusions. The arguments in the Motion to Reconsider are nothing more than a re-argument of the facts previously presented to the Court in the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Compare Doc. 142, with Doc. 133). Indeed, Plaintiff again restates his position that he is 18 not unwilling to accept mail, but rather only unwilling to sign for its receipt or to send 19 outgoing mail. (Doc. 142 at 1–2). Nonetheless, Plaintiff again admits (id.) that the 20 practical implication of his refusal to follow the Arizona Department of Corrections 21 (“ADC”) mail protocol is that the ADC refuses to release mail to Plaintiff or send 22 Plaintiff’s outgoing mail without Plaintiff’s signature acknowledging the action. As the 23 Court explained in its previous Order, Plaintiff’s repeated refusals to accept mail and 24 prosecute his case, despite the Court’s repeated warnings, warrant dismissal without 25 prejudice. (Doc. 138 at 4). 26 Plaintiff must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision; the Court 27 should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless there is need to correct a clear error 28 of law or prevent manifest injustice. See Motorola, Inc, 215 F.R.D. at 586. Such is not the -2- 1 case here. Plaintiff has failed to present the Court with cause to reconsider its March 10, 2 2014 Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. For the 3 reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 142) is 6 7 8 9 DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Joint Pretrial Final Proposed Order (Doc. 141) is DENIED as moot. Dated this 25th day of March, 2014. 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?