Monk v. Gissels et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration and this case shall remain closed. The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/4/15.(LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 SH WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Justen Kofi Monk, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 No. CV 13-2392-PHX-DGC (MEA) v. ORDER Unknown Gissels, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On November 20, 2013, Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison- 16 Phoenix, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On April 22, 2014, the Court granted the 18 Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The 19 Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, the Court’s 20 April 22 Order was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff was no longer in custody. 21 On June 12, 2014, the Clerk of Court dismissed this case for failure to comply with the 22 April 22 Order and entered judgment. On June 23, 2014, the judgment order was also 23 returned as undeliverable. 24 On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and an 25 Application to Proceed. In a December 17, 2014 Order, the Court denied the Application 26 to Proceed and dismissed the First Amended Complaint. The Court advised Plaintiff that 27 if he wished to pursue his claims, he would have to file a new complaint in a new case. 28 .... 1 On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19), 2 asking the Court to reconsider its December 17 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s First 3 Amended Complaint. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion and this case shall remain 4 closed. 5 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 6 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 7 reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly 8 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 9 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 10 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions 11 should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had 12 already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 13 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 14 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or 15 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 16 the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of 18 or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 19 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an 20 insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 21 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 22 The Court has reviewed the December 17, 2014 Order dismissing the First 23 Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, and the Court finds no 24 basis to reconsider its decision. Additionally, Plaintiff was warned in the November 20, 25 2013 Notice of Assignment and in the Court’s April 22, 2014 Order that failure to file a 26 notice of change of address could result in this case being dismissed. The Court will 27 therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his 28 claims, he must file a new complaint in a new case and must pay the filing fee or file a -2- 1 complete Application to Proceed in the new case. 2 IT IS ORDERED: 3 4 5 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied, and this case shall remain closed. (2) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of 7 this decision would not be taken in good faith. 8 Dated this 4th day of February, 2015. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?