Montes v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
105
ORDER denying 103 Motion to Amend Complaint. This matter shall remained CLOSED. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 6/27/2012.(ALS)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
STEVEN MONTES,
10
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
12
13
STATE OF ARIZONA; CITY OF
TUCSON, et al.,
14
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-0267-TUC-CKJ
ORDER
15
On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed his pro se Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 103].
16
17
On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conflict of Interest [Doc. 104].
18
19
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20
On June 5, 2012, this Court issued its Order [Doc. 101] screening and dismissing
21
Plaintiff’s [Fifth Amended] Complaint [Doc. 93]. Plaintiff filed yet another motion to amend
22
his Complaint on the same date.1
23
24
25
II.
SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
To the extent that Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint may be deemed a motion for
26
27
1
28
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 103] appears to be a Sixth Amended
Complaint.
1
reconsideration, the Court will deny the motion.
2
As this Court has previously stated, “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for
3
reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or
4
legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable
5
diligence.”
6
reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
7
surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could
8
not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4)
9
voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying
10
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d
11
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying
12
relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is
13
wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film
14
Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Mere disagreement with a
15
previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp.,
16
689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority
17
or new facts to support a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, such motion is denied.
18
“The power to grant leave to amend, however, is entrusted to the discretion of the
19
district court, which ‘determines the propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the
20
presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party,
21
and/or futility.’” Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010); See also Foman v.
22
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 183, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Zucco Partners, LLC v.
23
Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009). Local Rule 15.1, Rules of Practice of
24
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, directs that “[a] party who moves
25
for leave to amend a pleading . . must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading . . .,
26
which must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends . . . . The
27
proposed amended pleading is not to incorporate by reference any part of the preceding
28
pleading, including exhibits.” LRCiv. 15.1. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s proposed
LRCiv. 7.2(g).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for
-2-
1
amendments fail to comply with this mandate.
2
The remainder of Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint [Doc. 103] largely reiterates
3
claims previously dismissed by this Court without leave to amend. See Order 2/29/12 [Doc.
4
88]; Order 6/5/12 [Doc. 101]. The Court again declines the invitation to repeat all of the
5
reasons that these claims fail. Moreover, any “new” claims are wholly conclusory and
6
without any factual basis. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported
7
by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129
8
S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted). “Nor does a complaint suffice
9
if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (citations
10
omitted) (alterations in original). Plaintiff’s latest Complaint is deficient and as such the
11
Court finds his attempt to amend futile.
12
13
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [Doc.
103] is DENIED. This matter shall remained CLOSED.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2012.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?