Baker v. I.C. System, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and granting 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/9/08.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 2 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 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) IC System, Inc.; Karen Doe; Turonda Doe;) ) and Dave Doe, ) ) Defendants. ) Christine Baker, No. CV-08-8091-PCT-DGC ORDER On August 8, 2008, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion to allow electronic filing. Dkt. #11; see Dkt. #8. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of that order. Dkt. #12. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008) (citations omitted); N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because it simply asserts new arguments that could have been presented in Plaintiff's initial motion. With respect to Plaintiff's request for clarification, the motion to allow electronic filing was denied because 1 2 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 this Court's policy is to require pro se litigants to submit documents in paper form so that the Clerk's Office can insure that the documents are properly filed. IT IS ORDERED: 1. 2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #12) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for clarification (Dkt. #12) is granted. DATED this 9th day of September, 2008. -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?