Nimer v. Ryan et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 71 Plaintiff's Response to Order and Motion for Good Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 5/6/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Alan Troy Nimer,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-1435-PHX-ROS (LOA)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Response to Order and Motion for Good

16

Cause. (Doc. 71) Defendants have filed a Notice of Acknowledgment stating that because

17

Plaintiff’s motion “appears to be a motion for reconsideration, the Defendants will not respond

18

further unless ordered to do so by the Court.” (Doc. 72)

19

Although he does not identify it as a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion

20

seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, doc. 68, dated April 14, 2014, in which the Court

21

denied Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to submit discovery requests. The Court found

22

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested extension. The only reason Plaintiff

23

gave for an extension was that he received his medical records late because he was transferred

24

to a different housing unit. Plaintiff failed to explain why the delay warranted an extension of

25

the deadline for discovery requests.

26

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

27

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

28

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

1
2
3
4

14
15
16

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)).
In the instant motion, Plaintiff claims he “is now showing good cause to extend” the

17
18
19
20
21

deadline for requesting discovery. (Doc. 71 at 1) Again, however, the only reason Plaintiff
presents for the requested extension is that he did not receive his medical records until after the
deadline passed. He questions how he could request discovery before reviewing his medical
records.
The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet the standards for reconsideration. He has

22
23
24
25
26
27

not shown the Court committed clear error or shown new facts or legal authority that could not
have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Plaintiff is simply
asking the Court to reach a different decision than it did the first time it addressed the same
issue. Having failed to satisfy the standards for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion will be
denied.

28
-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Order and Motion for Good Cause,

3
4

doc. 71, is DENIED.
DATED this 6th day of May, 2014.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-