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)

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-