Hempfling et al v. Voyles et al

Filing 26

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' "Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60 (B)(1) and Motion for Immediate Summary Judgment" (Doc. 25 ). The Court's April 11, 2017 Order (Doc. 24 ) is affirmed. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 6/23/17. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 6 7 No. CV-16-03213-PHX-ESW 8 9 Lee Kent Hempfling, et al., 10 ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 M Lando Voyles, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 On April 11, 2017, the Court granted the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 24). On April 13, 2017, Plaintiffs’ filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment or Order Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60 (B)(1) and Motion for Immediate Summary Judgment” (Doc. 25). To prevail on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from a final 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 judgment or order, a litigant must show “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See 2 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate 3 if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 4 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 5 in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multonomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263; see also 6 LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an 7 Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that 8 could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”). Such 9 motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “to rethink what the court 10 had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 11 909 F.Supp 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 12 Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 25) fails to show any grounds for relief under Rule 60(b) 13 and does not present any basis that warrants reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 14 24) dismissing the Complaint. Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Reconsideration and Relief 16 from Judgment or Order Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60 (B)(1) and Motion for Immediate 17 Summary Judgment” (Doc. 25). The Court’s April 11, 2017 Order (Doc. 24) is affirmed. 18 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2017. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?