Blomdahl v. Jaffy et al

Filing 80

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 79 ) is denied. See the attached order for additional information. Signed by Judge Michael T. Liburdi on 11/19/2020. (RMW)

1

WO

SH

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Adam Paul Blomdahl,

10
11
12

No. CV 19-00227-PHX-MTL

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Unknown Jaffe, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Adam Paul Blomdahl, who is currently confined in Arizona State Prison

16

Complex (ASPC)-Florence, Browning Unit in Florence, Arizona, brought this civil rights

17

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

18

Reconsideration. (Doc. 79.)

19
20

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

The Court will deny the Motion.
I.

Background

21

Upon screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) under 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated a Fourteenth Amendment

23

conditions-of-confinement claim against Maricopa County Health Services Psychiatrist

24

Dr. Jaffe in Count Two and a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim against

25

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MSCO) Sergeant Shamrock in Count Three. (Doc. 8.)

26
27
28

The events that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims in this action took place while
Plaintiff was confined at the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix, Arizona.
(See Doc. 7 at 1.)
1

1

The Court directed Defendants Jaffe and Shamrock to answer and dismissed the remaining

2

claims and Defendants. (Id.)

3

In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that in October 2016, while he was confined at the

4

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, Defendant Jaffe had him moved out of the jail’s

5

psychiatric unit and placed into a “flat cell” in which Plaintiff did not have a working toilet

6

or shower and was deprived of clothing, reasonable shelter, sanitation, medical care, and

7

safety. (Doc. 7 at 11–12.) In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to be

8

moved from close custody back to general population in June 2017, he was beaten and

9

pepper sprayed by several detention officers at Defendant Shamrock’s orders. (Id. at 19–

10

20.)

11

On May 7, 2020, Defendants moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 57.) In an Order

12

issued on November 5, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants after

13

determining that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust the available remedies for his claim against

14

Defendant Shamrock and that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Jaffe was barred by the

15

two-year statute of limitations. (Doc. 77.)

16

II.

Motion for Reconsideration

17

The Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion filed pursuant to either Rule

18

59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry,

19

950 F.2d 1437, 1441-42 (9th Cir. 1991) (motion to reconsider can be construed as Rule 60

20

or Rule 59 motion even when movant brought it under local rules and cited no governing

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure). It is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny a

22

motion for reconsideration filed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J,

23

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

Reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 59(e) “if the district court (1) is presented

25

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

26

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

27

“Rule 60(b) ‘provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or

28

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a

-2-

1

satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify

2

relief.’” Id. (quoting Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442). See also Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d

3

1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).

4

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.

5

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such motions

6

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already

7

thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

8

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Motions for reconsideration are not the

9

place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest

10

Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925– 26 (9th Cir. 1988). In

11

other words, a motion for reconsideration “is not another opportunity for the losing party

12

to make its strongest case, reassert arguments, or revamp previously unmeritorious

13

arguments,” nor is a motion for reconsideration meant to give a party a “second bite at the

14

apple.” Jackson v. Woodford, 05cv0513-L (NLS), 2008 WL 2115121, at *1 (S.D. Cal.

15

May 19, 2008).

16

Plaintiff devotes a significant portion of his Motion to arguing that he did not have

17

an opportunity to view a June 2017 jail video showing him being assault by several

18

detention officers, one of which may have been Defendant Shamrock. But in its November

19

5, 2020 Order, the Court determined that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim against

20

Defendant Shamrock. (See Doc. 77 at 8.) The contents of the jail video are immaterial to

21

the issue of exhaustion. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s Order is insufficient

22

to warrant reconsideration. Plaintiff does not present the Court with any newly-discovered

23

evidence or show that the Court committed clear error in its summary judgment ruling.

24

Nor does he point to any intervening change in controlling law. Instead, Plaintiff merely

25

summarizes the allegations in his First Amended Complaint and reiterates arguments he

26

made or could have made at the time of the summary judgment litigation. Accordingly,

27

Plaintiff fails to show any reason why the Court should reconsider its prior Order, and the

28

Court will deny his Motion for Reconsideration.

-3-

1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 79) is denied.

2

Dated this 19th day of November, 2020.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-