Novak v. Arizona, State of
ORDER: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement of Lawsuit and Opportunity to Amend Lawsuit (Doc. 8 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to construe Plaintiff's Motion as a Notice of Appeal filed on December 22, 2015 (Doc. [8)], and process the Notice of Appeal accordingly. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 1/14/2016. (REK)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Arizona, State of,
At issue is the Motion for Reinstatement of Lawsuit and Opportunity to Amend
Lawsuit or in the Alternative, if Not Granted, Notice of Appeal to the Federal Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 8), filed by pro se Plaintiff David Novak. On
December 10, 2015, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Arizona with
prejudice because the doctrine of state sovereign immunity precludes Plaintiff from
seeking money damages against the State and, with regard to Plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief, a federal district court cannot review state court decisions in an appellate
capacity. (Doc. 7.) Because Plaintiff cannot remedy his claims against the State by
amending the Complaint, the Court dismissed his claims with prejudice.
Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision. Motions for reconsideration
should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.
Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the
district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error
or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for
reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw.
1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor
may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or
in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215
F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Plaintiff has provided the Court with no basis to
withdraw its prior decision, and the Court must therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration. The Court thus construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a Notice of Appeal, filed
December 22, 2015.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reinstatement of
Lawsuit and Opportunity to Amend Lawsuit (Doc. 8).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to construe Plaintiff’s
Motion as a Notice of Appeal filed on December 22, 2015 (Doc. 8), and process the
Notice of Appeal accordingly.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2016.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
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?