Morton v. State Bar of Arizona

Filing 10

ORDER that Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Relief from Order is denied. Plaintiff is advised that this case is closed and the Court will summarily deny any further motions. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/27/2015.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Carly Morton,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CV-14-1647-PHX-DGC
ORDER

v.
State Bar of Arizona,
Defendant.

13
14
15

Plaintiff Carly Morton has filed a one-paragraph Motion for Relief from Order.

16

Doc. 7. Plaintiff claims that she is entitled to relief Rule 60(b)(6) because the Court’s

17

previous order (Doc. 6) “is not applicable for her circumstances” and because the Court

18

did not appoint an attorney to represent her. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for

19

several reasons.

20

First, a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must be brought within a reasonable time.

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff waited more than five months to file her one-paragraph

22

motion, which was not reasonable. The motion is untimely.

23

Second, the motion is more appropriately characterized as a motion for

24

reconsideration. Such motions must be brought within 14 days. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). The

25

motion is untimely for this reason as well.

26

Third, even if the Court were to consider the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff

27

has failed to show that the Court committed a clear error of law that would make

28

reconsideration appropriate. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

1

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (listing the bases for granting a motion for

2

reconsideration); United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)

3

(noting that motions for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the court “‘to rethink what

4

the court has already thought through’” (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

5

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

6

Fourth, in its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court explained that

7

Plaintiff had not filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the Sixth Amendment

8

does not provide any private right of action against individual attorneys or a state bar

9

association. Doc. 6. This ruling was correct. Even if Plaintiff had made a claim for

10

violation of her constitutional rights under § 1983, it could not be sustained. “[A] lawyer

11

representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor ‘under

12

color of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.” Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,

13

318 (1981); Miranda v. Clark Cnty., Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003).

14

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order (Doc. 7) is

15

denied. Plaintiff is advised that this case is closed and the Court will summarily deny

16

any further motions.

17

Dated this 27th day of February, 2015.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-