Montes v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
113
ORDER: Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Number CIV-11-00267-CKJ to Vacate Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June 5, 2012 106 is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case Number: CIV-11- 00267-CKJ and Vacate Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June 5, 2012 107 is DENIED; and This matter is to remain closed. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 7/11/2012.(ALS)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
STEVEN MONTES,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
12
STATE OF ARIZONA; CITY OF
TUCSON, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-11-0267-TUC-CKJ
ORDER
15
On June 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his pro se Preliminary Injunction Number CIV-11-
16
00267-CKJ to Vacate Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102
17
Filed on June 5, 2012 [Doc. 106], Motion to Reopen Case Number: CIV-11-00267-CKJ and
18
Vacate Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June
19
5, 2012 [Doc. 107], and Notice of Appeal [Doc. 108]. On July 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed his pro
20
se Appellate brief [Doc. 111].
21
22
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
23
On June 5, 2012, this Court issued its Order [Doc. 101] screening and dismissing
24
Plaintiff’s [Fifth Amended] Complaint [Doc. 93]. On June 28, 2012, this Court issued its
25
Order [Doc. 105] denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s June
26
5, 2012 Order [Doc. 101] and his motion to amend his Complaint for a sixth time.
27
28
1
II.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2
Plaintiff appears to seek a preliminary injunction against entry of this Court’s June 5,
3
2012 Judgment [Doc. 102] dismissing this cause of action. A preliminary injunction is an
4
extraordinary and drastic remedy and will not be granted absent a clear showing of likely
5
success in the underlying claim and likely irreparable injury. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
6
U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 1867, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (per curiam); Warsoldier v.
7
Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2005); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 805 (9th
8
Cir. 1995); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
9
show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm
10
in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
11
injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555
12
U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The moving party has the burden
13
of proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184
14
F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).
15
Additionally, the function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo
16
pending a determination on the merits. Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court, 840 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir.
17
1988). As such, there is heightened scrutiny where the movant seeks to alter rather than
18
maintain the status quo. Dahl v. HEM Pharms. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993)
19
(holding that mandatory, as opposed to prohibitory, injunctions are “subject to a heightened
20
scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.”).
21
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that this type of mandatory injunctive relief is
22
disfavored, and should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the movant.
23
Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1979).
24
Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that a preliminary injunction is
25
warranted in this circumstance. After reviewing and considering Plaintiff’s several attempts
26
at filing a Complaint which stated a cognizable claim, this Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s
27
case because of his failure to allege a cause of action. Plaintiff has filed his Notice of Appeal
28
[Doc. 108] and now seeks relief from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Continuing to
-2-
1
litigate this closed case is prejudicial to the defendants, a waste of judicial resources, and as
2
such not in the public interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is
3
denied.
4
5
III.
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
6
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s June 5, 2012 Order [Doc. 101]. Federal
7
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the
8
following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly
9
discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the
10
court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction
11
of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist.
12
No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph
13
(6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere
14
dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not
15
adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d
16
1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis
17
for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw.
18
1988). “No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written
19
argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B.
20
Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).
21
Plaintiff alleges no newly discovered evidence, no mistake or surprise, and no fraud
22
by the adverse party. Plaintiff does not provide any other reason justifying relief. The motion
23
for reconsideration is not based on an intervening change in controlling law, nor does it offer
24
any new argument as to how his Fifth or Sixth Amended Complaints sufficiently state a
25
claim. Plaintiff submitted hundreds of pages of exhibits in opposition to motions to dismiss
26
and in support of his Complaints generally. Despite Plaintiff’s displeasure with this Court’s
27
“refusal” to extend his time to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court did
28
review and consider the hundreds of pages of supplemental documents filed by Plaintiff after
-3-
1
his responses were due. In short, Plaintiff has not presented any additional information to
2
warrant reconsideration of the Court’s previous order. See AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263.
3
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to file a sufficient
4
Complaint, yet failed to do so. The Court finds reconsideration is not appropriate, and the
5
motion will be denied.
6
7
IV.
APPELLATE BRIEF
8
The Court reminds Plaintiff that this it does not have jurisdiction over his appeal. "As
9
a general rule, ‘[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance –
10
it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over
11
those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” Estate of Conners by Meredith v.
12
O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount
13
Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 402, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam)). Accordingly,
14
the Court finds Plaintiff’s appellate brief improvidently filed with this Court and directs
15
Plaintiff to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
16
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1)
Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction Number CIV-11-00267-CKJ to Vacate
19
Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June 5, 2012
20
[Doc. 106] is DENIED;
21
2)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case Number: CIV-11-00267-CKJ and Vacate
22
Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June 5, 2012
23
[Doc. 107] is DENIED; and
24
3)
This matter is to remain closed.
25
DATED this 11th day of July, 2012.
26
27
28
-4-
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?