Morton v. State Bar of Arizona
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
State Bar of Arizona,
Plaintiff Carly Morton has filed a one-paragraph Motion for Relief from Order.
Doc. 7. Plaintiff claims that she is entitled to relief Rule 60(b)(6) because the Court’s
previous order (Doc. 6) “is not applicable for her circumstances” and because the Court
did not appoint an attorney to represent her. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for
First, a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must be brought within a reasonable time.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff waited more than five months to file her one-paragraph
motion, which was not reasonable. The motion is untimely.
Second, the motion is more appropriately characterized as a motion for
reconsideration. Such motions must be brought within 14 days. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). The
motion is untimely for this reason as well.
Third, even if the Court were to consider the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff
has failed to show that the Court committed a clear error of law that would make
reconsideration appropriate. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (listing the bases for granting a motion for
reconsideration); United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)
(noting that motions for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the court “‘to rethink what
the court has already thought through’” (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan
Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Fourth, in its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court explained that
Plaintiff had not filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the Sixth Amendment
does not provide any private right of action against individual attorneys or a state bar
association. Doc. 6. This ruling was correct. Even if Plaintiff had made a claim for
violation of her constitutional rights under § 1983, it could not be sustained. “[A] lawyer
representing a client is not, by virtue of being an officer of the court, a state actor ‘under
color of state law’ within the meaning of § 1983.” Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312,
318 (1981); Miranda v. Clark Cnty., Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Order (Doc. 7) is
denied. Plaintiff is advised that this case is closed and the Court will summarily deny
any further motions.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2015.
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?