Pruitt v. Ryan et al
ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 11/24/15.(KGM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sherman Terrell Pruitt,
No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Plaintiff Sherman Terrell Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison
Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 29) was denied by Order of the Court filed August 18, 2015 (Doc. 34). Plaintiff
seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order in the pending Motion for Reconsideration for
Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 36). Plaintiff asserts that library hours,
Plaintiff’s lack of understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff’s
lack of legal training support reconsideration of the Court’s ruling.
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if
the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear
error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change
in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“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 reasonable diligence”).
Here, Plaintiff has not presented any basis which warrants reconsideration of the
Court’s prior Order denying the request to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has
presented no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. The
Court has committed no clear error. Plaintiff has failed to establish manifest injustice.
Plaintiff having failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration, the Motion for
Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) is denied.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2015.
Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge
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?