Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00674/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00674-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenghiz K. Stewart,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Central Arizona Correction Facility, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0674-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jenghiz K. Stewart, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Florence, Arizona, filed this civil rights action against employees of the Arizona Department

of Corrections (ADC). Hamidi moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), alleging failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and

Bezy and Hernandez joined the motion. (Doc. ##11, 24.) The Court denied the motion and

gave Defendants 30 days to file another motion on the ground of failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. (Doc. #77.) Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration. (Doc. ##86,

89.)

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motions.

I. Background

As stated, the Order about which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration, denied Defendants’

motion to dismiss. 

 In that Order, the Court noted that no separate Notice was sent pursuant to Wyatt v.

Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2003), regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to

respond to Bezy and Hernandez, and it was unclear that a separate response was required.

Case 2:09-cv-00674-MHM Document 104 Filed 12/22/09 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

1

Both motions for reconsideration raise the same arguments. 

- 2 -

Plaintiff asserted that he did not receive Bezy and Hernandez’s joinder to the motion to

dismiss, and he asked for a 30-day extension of time. (Doc. #56.) The Court denied the

request as unnecessary, considered Plaintiff’s response as one to all Defendants, and denied

Defendants’ motion. 

In his motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that in considering Plaintiff’s

response as one to all Defendants, the Court has “caused harm against him throughout the

course of this litigation.”1

 (Doc. #86 at 1.) He again claims he never received the Notice of

Joinder in the Motion. (Id. at 5, ref. Doc. #24.) He suggests that Bezy and Hernandez are

proceeding in an underhanded manner by joining Hamidi’s motion and that the Court should

impose sanctions “to have attorneys for Bezy and Hernandez deal with their own issues

rather than ride the coat tails of Hamidi.” (Doc. #86 at 5-6.) The Magistrate Judge has

previously denied Plaintiff’s various motions for sanctions. (Doc. #79.)

In general, revision or reconsideration of an order “is appropriate if the district court

(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.”

Id. 

Plaintiff’s arguments are frivolous. There is nothing improper about Bezy and

Hernandez joining in a co-Defendant’s motion. Moreover, because the Court ruled in

Plaintiff’s favor on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff cannot claim that he has been

harmed. Plaintiff presents nothing to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s November 5,

2009 Order. (Doc. #77.)

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-00674-MHM Document 104 Filed 12/22/09 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 ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is with drawn as to Plaintiff’s Motions for

Relief from Order (Doc. ##86, 89), and the Motions are denied.

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Defendants’

Notice of Joinder in Defendant Hamidi’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #24).

DATED this 16th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00674-MHM Document 104 Filed 12/22/09 Page 3 of 3