Aros #95001 v. Ryan et al

Filing 218

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, doc. #216 , is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time, doc. #217 , is GRANTED in part. The motion is granted in that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is extended by thirty days. Plaintiff's response must be filed no later than July 23, 2014. No further extensions will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 6/26/2014.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Armando R. Aros, III,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-2565-PHX-SRB (LOA)
ORDER

15

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Plaintiff’s

16

Motion for Extension of Time. (Docs. 216, 217) In the order for which Plaintiff seeks

17

reconsideration, doc. 215, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File a

18

Supplemental Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery and Extend Deadlines.

19

(Docs. 193, 194) In the second motion, Plaintiff requests a 45-day extension to respond to

20

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

21

Plaintiff contends in the motion for reconsideration that the Court overlooked an

22

alternative to an outright denial of his motion to file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff claims

23

the Court “could have allowed the Supplemental Complaint solely to the extent that Plaintiff

24

be permitted to debate the evidence bearing on his Vitamin D deficiency and the subsequent

25

improvement to his health caused by greater exposure to direct sunlight.” (Doc. 216 at 2)

26

(emphasis in original)

27
28

Motions for reconsideration are governed by LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), which provides:

6

The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent
a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that
could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Any such motion shall point out with specificity the matters that the movant
believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being
brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not
presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s
Order. No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written
argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that
resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for
denial of the motion.

7

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of

8

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is appropriate

9

if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error

10

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

11

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

12

(9th Cir. 1993). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of

13

law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d 906,

14

909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). Such motions should not be used for the

1
2
3
4
5

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through - rightly or
wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel
Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Here, Plaintiff has not shown the Court’s denial of his motion to file a supplemental
complaint constituted clear error, or that it should be reconsidered based on newly discovery
evidence or an intervening change in the law. The motion for reconsideration will, therefore,
be denied. However, the Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental
complaint should not be interpreted to preclude Plaintiff from presenting proper summary
judgment evidence pertaining to his Vitamin D levels, including evidence showing alleged
changes in those levels based on exposure to direct sunlight. Plaintiff may present such evidence
on summary judgment to support his claim in Count Thirteen that he has received inadequate
exposure to direct sunlight, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Regarding the motion for additional time to respond to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, this is Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of the response deadline.

-2-

1

The Court previously granted an extension until June 23, 2014. (Doc. 214) The Motion for

2

Summary Judgment was filed on April 18, 2014. After review of the reasons set forth in

3

Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds a thirty day extension is warranted. The motion will,

4

therefore, be granted in part. No further extensions will be granted.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, doc. 216, is DENIED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, doc. 217,

8

is GRANTED in part. The motion is granted in that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response

9
10
11

to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is extended by thirty days. Plaintiff’s response
must be filed no later than July 23, 2014. No further extensions will be granted.
DATED this 26th day of June, 2014.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-