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)

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-