Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08237/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08237-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

T. William Short, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

County of Apache et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8237-PHX-GMS

ORDER

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:10-cv-08237-GMS Document 48 Filed 03/23/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

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 - 2 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reconsidered.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-08237-GMS Document 48 Filed 03/23/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

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 -

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.

Case 3:10-cv-08237-GMS Document 48 Filed 03/23/12 Page 3 of 3