Thompson v. Apache County, et al.

Filing 182

ORDER denying 181 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/1/2011.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV10-8009-PCT-DGC

Henry Thompson,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

ORDER

Apache County, a local governmental
entity; Michael Whiting, in his official and
individual capacity, and Jocylynn Whiting,
husband and wife,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its November 15, 2011 order (Doc. 177)

18

granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 religious discrimination claim.

19

Doc. 181. The Court will deny the motion.

20

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

21

circumstances.

22

3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied

23

“absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that

24

could not have been brought to [the Court=s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

25

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). This

26

standard clearly has not been met.

27
28

See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL

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

Plaintiff argues that evidence reviewed and cited by the Court in its November 15,
2011 order shows that Plaintiff established a prima facie case of religious discrimination.
To make this argument, however, Plaintiff points to portions of affidavits that were not
cited for the Court in Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment. The
Court had no obligation to search the record given Plaintiff’s failure to provide citations,
Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001), and
the fact that it was able to do so on some issues does not mean that it erred in not finding
nearby evidence – never cited by Plaintiff – on other issues.
Moreover, to show a prima facie case of discrimination Plaintiff must present
evidence that “similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more
favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to
an inference of discrimination.” Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 603
(9th Cir. 2004). Defendants made a number of factual assertions to show that LDS
individuals were not treated more favorably and that the facts of this case do not give rise
to an inference of discrimination. Doc. 177 at 9. Plaintiff responded “with a veritable
blizzard of factual assertions,” id., none of which included a citation to the record. The
Court is not convinced that the few items now cited in the motion for reconsideration
effectively counter Defendants’ factual arguments, nor that the Court erred in failing to
connect the dots between items of evidence contained in portions of the record it
reviewed on other issues. Finding relevant evidence in the record is the responsibility of
the parties, not the Court.
The Court is frustrated to have resolved the religious discrimination claim on the
basis of Plaintiff’s failure to provide citations to the record. Cases should not be resolved
that way. But in this era of heavy case loads, the Court of Appeals rightly has concluded
that district courts should not take time and effort away from other cases in order to find
evidence parties should find and cite on their own.

27
28
-2-

1
2
3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 181) is
denied.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2011.

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
-3-