Edwards v. Mesa Municipal Court et al

Filing 19

ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18 ) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for management conference (Doc. 17 ) is denied as moot. Plaintiff shall not file motions or other documents in this dismissed action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/19/2015.(REK)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Corey Darnell Edwards, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-01676-PHX-DGC Mesa Municipal Court, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 This case was dismissed without prejudice on January 28, 2015, due to Plaintiff’s 17 repeated failures to comply with Court rules and orders. Doc. 15. Plaintiff has now filed 18 a motion for “appeal” which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration. 19 Doc. 18. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for management conference. Doc. 17. The 20 Court will deny both motions. 21 I. Background. 22 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on June 12, 2014, in Maricopa County Superior 23 Court against Mesa Municipal Court, Chandler Police, Mesa Police, Maricopa County 24 Sheriff’s Department (“MCSO”), and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. Doc. 1-1 at 5. 25 On July 31, 2014, Defendants Mesa Municipal Court and the Mesa Police 26 Department (“Mesa Defendants”) filed a motion for a more definite statement. Doc. 4. 27 On August 1, 2014, Defendant MCSO filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 5. Plaintiff failed 28 to respond to the motions within the time limit set by the rules of procedure. See LRCiv 1 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving Plaintiff until 2 September 29, 2014 to file responses. Doc. 6. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to 3 comply with the order would result in the Court summarily granting the motions. 4 Plaintiff filed a response to the Mesa Defendants’ motion for more definite statement 5 (Doc. 7), but did not respond to MCSO’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did file two 6 “motions for judgment.” Docs. 9, 10. 7 The Court entered an order on November 18, 2014, granting the Mesa Defendants’ 8 motion for a more definite statement, granting MCSO’s motion to dismiss, denying 9 Plaintiff’s motions for judgment, and ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by 10 December 22, 2014. Doc. 12. Plaintiff was warned “that if he fails to file an amended 11 complaint by December 22, 2014, the case will be dismissed.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff was also 12 given guidance regarding the content of his amended complaint. Id. at 4-6. 13 Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. More than six weeks passed 14 after the Court’s deadline, and no amended complaint was filed. Plaintiff filed another 15 motion, apparently directed to MCSO, “for more Details.” Doc. 14. Applying the five factors set forth in Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 16 17 1995), the Court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate result. 18 Among other things, the Court noted that it “cannot be in the business of repeatedly 19 having to prompt a litigant to follow court orders or the local rules.” Doc. 15 at 2. 20 II. Motion for Reconsideration. 21 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 22 circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 23 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr.15, 2008). A motion for reconsideration will be denied 24 “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that 25 could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 26 LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for 27 reconsideration. See Ross, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2. Nor should reconsideration be used 28 to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id. -2- 1 Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any basis for reconsideration of the Court’s 2 previous order. He recounts some of the events leading to his complaint in this case, 3 asserts that an amended complaint is not needed, and makes other assertions not relevant 4 to reconsideration. Doc. 18. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 5 6 Because this case has been dismissed, Plaintiff is directed not to make further filings in this action. 7 IT IS ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied. 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for management conference (Doc. 17) is denied as moot. 10 3. Plaintiff shall not file motions or other documents in this dismissed action. 11 Dated this 19th day of May, 2015. 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?