Stewart v. Ryan et al

Filing 17

ORDER Plaintiff's Motion (Notice) to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 14 ) is granted in part to the extent that the Court will accept Plaintiff's October 26th Motion as timely filed; the Motion is denied with respect to all other relief requested. Plaintiff's October 26, 2012 Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment (Doc. 15 ) is denied. The case must remain closed. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 11/14/2012.(KMG)

Download PDF
1 WO M 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Thomas Stewart, Jr., 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 12-1163 PHX RCB (LOA) ORDER 14 15 On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff Thomas Stewart, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State 16 Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 17 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a June 20, 2012 Order, the Court 18 granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 19 to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured 20 the deficiencies identified in the Order. 21 On July 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended 22 Complaint. On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11). In 23 a September 10, 2012 Order, the Court dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action 24 for failure to state a claim. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion to 25 Alter and Amend the Judgment, and, an Extension of Time to File Such Motion” (Doc. 14). 26 On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment (Doc. 15). 27 The Court will grant the September 24, 2012 Motion/Notice to the extent that the 28 Court will accept Plaintiff’s October 26th Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment as timely 1 filed. 2 The failure to properly brief an issue does not warrant granting a motion to reconsider. 3 Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 4 2003). “Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of 5 Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion 6 for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered 7 evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions 8 should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already 9 thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 10 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 11 1983)). 12 The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, Order of dismissal, and 13 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. 14 The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. 15 IT IS ORDERED: 16 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion (Notice) to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for 17 Extension of Time (Doc. 14) is granted in part to the extent that the Court will accept 18 Plaintiff’s October 26th Motion as timely filed; the Motion is denied with respect to all other 19 relief requested. 20 (2) 21 is denied. 22 (3) 23 DATED this 14th day of November, 2012. Plaintiff’s October 26, 2012 Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment (Doc. 15) The case must remain closed. 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?