Abordo vs. (DPS) Mainland Branch Admin, Shari Kimoto, et al.

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY OR FOR RECONSIDERATION re 9 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 1/15/13. "Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Proceedings and/or Reconsider is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this action immediately to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona." (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Edmund Abordo served by first class mail at the address of record on January 15, 2013.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
EDMUND D. ABORDO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
D.P.S., et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:12-cv-00686 SOM/BMK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY OR
FOR RECONSIDERATION

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY OR FOR RECONSIDERATION
On December 26, 2012, the court ordered this action
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona.
Stay.

ECF #6.

ECF #9.

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have moved him

to punitive segregation for assisting another inmate in preparing
a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

See id.

Plaintiff asserts

that this is part of the same course of retaliatory conduct set
forth in his Complaint, allegedly taken against him because he
has filed lawsuits against prison officials.

Plaintiff moves for

an order releasing him from segregation, and/or from custody, or
for a stay of the action until his scheduled release from prison
on April 21, 2013.

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
I. DISCUSSION

Although this case has been transferred to the District
of Arizona, it has not been docketed in Arizona yet.
therefore retains jurisdiction to rule on the Motion.

This court
See

Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 28578 *2

(9th Cir. Jan. 03, 2013); see Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733
(9th Cir. 1987) (adopting “the docketing date as the time of
effective transfer”).

Nonetheless, Plaintiff provides no reason

for this court, rather than the District of Arizona, to determine
whether amendment of the transferred Complaint to allege this new
claim should be allowed.

As with the original claims, venue for

this new claim, which occurred or is occurring in Arizona, lies
in the District of Arizona and is better left to that court to
resolve.
To the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of
the transfer Order, the Motion is also DENIED.

A successful

motion for reconsideration must demonstrate some reason that the
court should reconsider its prior decision and set forth facts or
law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
reverse its prior decision.
1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006).

White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d
Three grounds justify

reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Id. (citing Mustafa

v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir.
1998)).

Local Rule LR60.1 for the District of Hawaii implements

these standards for reconsideration of interlocutory orders.
“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances.”

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342

F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
2

The court, having reviewed the Order transferring this
case and Plaintiff’s Motion, discerns no reason to reconsider the
transfer Order.

Plaintiff presents no newly discovered evidence,

intervening change in the controlling law, or manifest error in
the decision to transfer this action to Arizona.

Plaintiff’s

Motion to Stay the Proceedings and/or Reconsider is DENIED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this action immediately to the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 15, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Abordo v. D.P.S., et al., 1:12-cv-00686 SOM/BMK; Order Denying Motion to Stay or for
Reconsideration; G:\docs\joni\000 CMECF.emailed for filing\2013 emailed for
filing\01.15.13

Abordo 12-686 som (dny stay, dny recon).wpd

3