Mincey v. Arpaio et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/13/13.(TLJ)

1

WO

SC

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Torrance Derrick Mincey,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 12-0303-PHX-GMS (LOA)
ORDER

14

Plaintiff Torrance Derrick Mincey, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

15

Complex, West Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to

16

42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend.

17

(Doc. 1, 8.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court also dismissed for

18

failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 12, 13.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

19

Complaint. (Doc. 14.) In an Order filed on November 13, 2012, the Court dismissed the

20

Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and this action. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff

21

has filed a motion for reconsideration and an affidavit. (Doc. 18, 19.) Plaintiff’s motion will

22

be denied.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

(D. Ariz. 1992).

4

In his motion for reconsideration and affidavit, Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to

5

rethink what it has already thought through. As noted above, that is not a basis for

6

reconsideration. Plaintiff has not pointed to newly discovered evidence or shown that the

7

Court clearly erred or an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

8

motion for reconsideration will be denied.

9
10

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc. 18.)
DATED this 13th day of March, 2013.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-