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)

Download PDF
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-

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?