Bussie v. Boehner et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The present case will remain closed. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 11/21/14.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anthony Bussie, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 No. CV 14-0127-PHX-RCB (DKD) vs. ORDER Congressman John Boehner, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff Anthony Bussie, who is confined in the Federal Detention Center in 16 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff filed a “Motion to default 18 by judgement [sic] to recover a sum certain under 20[illegible] 901(c)” (Doc. 3) and a 19 “Motion” (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has at least “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and 20 did not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. For that reason, on May 28, 21 2014, the Court denied the in forma pauperis application, denied his motions, and 22 dismissed the action. 23 On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Motion: Reopen and Reconsideration” 24 (Doc. 8). Plaintiff fails to allege or demonstrate any basis for reopening this action 25 pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 I. Motion: Reopen and Reconsideration 27 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s “Motion: Reopen and Reconsideration” as a 28 motion filed pursuant to either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441-42 (9th Cir. 1991) (motion 2 to reconsider can be construed as Rule 60 or Rule 59 motion even when movant brought 3 it under local rules and cited no governing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure). It is within 4 the Court’s discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration filed under Rule 59(e) 5 or Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 6 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 7 Reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) “if the district court (1) is 8 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 9 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling 10 law.” Id. at 1263. “Rule 60(b) ‘provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of 11 (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; 12 (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary 13 circumstances’ which would justify relief.’” Id. (quoting Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442). See 14 also Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). 15 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 16 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such 17 motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court 18 had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. 19 Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 20 A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 21 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 22 litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 23 Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of 24 or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 25 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an 26 insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 27 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 28 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion. The Court finds no basis to reconsider -2- 1 its decision. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 2 IT IS ORDERED: 3 (1) Plaintiff’s “Motion: Reopen and Reconsideration” (Doc. 8) is denied. 4 (2) The present case will remain closed. 5 DATED this 21st day of November, 2014. 6 7 8 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?