Bluth et al v. Unknown Parties

Filing 48

ORDER denying 47 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/22/12.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

T. William Short,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
County of Apache et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-8237-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff T. William Short’s Motion for Reconsideration.

16
17

(Doc. 47). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND

18
19

The facts in this matter are put forth in the Court’s Order of February 14th dismissing

20

the case. (Doc. 42). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dismissing the

21

case on March 13, 2012. (Doc. 47).
DISCUSSION

22
23

I.

Legal Standard

24

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

25

new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance

26

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Under Rule 59(e), a

27

motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four grounds, “1) the motion is

28

necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the

1

moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion

2

is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling

3

law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

4

(internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and

5

are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs and

6

arguments. See Northwest, 841 F.2d at 925–26. Nor should such motions ask the Court to

7

“rethink what the court has already thought through–rightly or wrongly.” See United States

8

v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

9

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

10

II.

Analysis

11

Plaintiff makes no new arguments in his motion, but instead continues to assert that

12

the state trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint that Noble Mountain Community

13

Association filed against him. (Doc. 47 at 1). As the Court noted in its original order, this

14

issue was raised, litigated, and appealed in state court, and a federal court does not have

15

jurisdiction to second-guess state court decisions of state law. Contrary to his statement that

16

the state courts “refused to consider the challenge to jurisdiction,” they considered his

17

arguments and found them without merit. See Noble Mountain Community Ass’n v. Short,

18

06-CA-CV-552, 2008 WL 2752346, at *8 (Ariz. App. 2008) (“We find that Cheryl Short and

19

Jason Bluth appeared in the action in the trial court and that the trial court therefore had

20

jurisdiction over each of them.”). Plaintiff’s further contentions—that judicial immunity is

21

not available to the state court judge and that the original judgment against him is

22

void—were likewise raised previously and found to be without merit. (Doc. 42). Plaintiff has

23

provided no grounds under Ninth Circuit law suggesting that the earlier order should be

24

reconsidered.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 47)
is denied. This case shall remain closed.
DATED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

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-