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)

Download PDF
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?