Pruitt v. Ryan et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 11/24/15.(KGM)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Sherman Terrell Pruitt,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Sherman Terrell Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

16

Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

18

(Doc. 29) was denied by Order of the Court filed August 18, 2015 (Doc. 34). Plaintiff

19

seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order in the pending Motion for Reconsideration for

20

Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 36). Plaintiff asserts that library hours,

21

Plaintiff’s lack of understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff’s

22

lack of legal training support reconsideration of the Court’s ruling.

23

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

24

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a

1

motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing

2

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier

3

with reasonable diligence”).

4

Here, Plaintiff has not presented any basis which warrants reconsideration of the

5

Court’s prior Order denying the request to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has

6

presented no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. The

7

Court has committed no clear error. Plaintiff has failed to establish manifest injustice.

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff having failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration, the Motion for
Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint will be denied.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend

12

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) is denied.

13

Dated this 24th day of November, 2015.

14
15
16

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge

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

-2-