Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00509/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-00509-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

JL

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Derek Bluford,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America,

Defendant.

No. CV-24-00509-PHX-JAT (ASB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Derek Bluford has filed a letter to the Court (Doc. 17), which the Court 

construes as a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal of this case.

I. Background

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se Verified Complaint and paid the filing 

and administrative fees. In an April 10, 2024 Order, the Court dismissed the Verified 

Complaint because it was not filed on this Court’s approved form for filing a civil rights 

Complaint by a prisoner. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint 

using the court-approved form included with the Order.

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In a May 15, 

2024Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed 

to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that 

cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On June 10, 2024, 

he filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and lodged a proposed Third Amended Complaint. In 

Case 2:24-cv-00509-JAT--ASB Document 18 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

a July 9, 2024 Order, the Court granted the Motion to Amend/Correct and directed the 

Clerk of Court to file the lodged proposed Third Amended Complaint. The Court 

dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff had failed 

to state a claim and gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a fourth amended complaint that cured 

the deficiencies identified in the Order.

Not having received a fourth amended complaint or a motion for extension of time, 

on September 3, 2024, the Clerk of Court dismissed this case with prejudice and entered 

judgment. Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration more than six weeks after the 

entry of Judgment, on October 22, 2024. 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reopen this case and rule on his “pending 

motions.” Plaintiff states that it appears the Court is “unaware” that he “submitted a motion 

to the Court requesting an additional 60 days, and permission to forgo using the complaint 

form.” Plaintiff asserts that he “had this motion mailed to the Court via USPS certified 

mail,” and although the tracking information “proves that it arrived to the Court,” it appears 

it was not “forwarded” to the undersigned. Plaintiff further states when he received notice 

that this case was dismissed, he mailed “yet another motion” to the Court informing the 

Court “of this error” and provided “all of the proof,” including a tracking number and 

copies. 

III. Governing Standard

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 

42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 

(9th Cir. 1992). “The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order 

absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could 

not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 

Any motion for reconsideration must specifically identify the matters that were overlooked 

or misapprehended by the Court. Id. If any new matters are being brought to the Court’s 

attention for the first time, the movant must identify the reasons they were not presented 

Case 2:24-cv-00509-JAT--ASB Document 18 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 4
- 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

earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. Id. No motion 

for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made in support 

of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order. Id.

Rule 60(b), which sets forth the grounds for relief from judgment, “provides for 

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged 

judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.” School Dist. 

No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation 

omitted). The moving party bears the burden of proving the existence of a basis for Rule 

60(b) relief. Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988). Although the 

moving party’s factual allegations are to be accepted as true, mere legal conclusions, 

general denials, or simple assertions are insufficient to justify overturning the underlying 

judgment. Id. 

“[A] party merits relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if he demonstrates ‘extraordinary 

circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his case.” Cmty. 

Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). To show extraordinary 

circumstances, the party must “demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control that prevented him from proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action 

in a proper fashion.” Id. 

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff states that after the Court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint for 

failure to state a claim, he filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file a fourth 

amended complaint and leave to forgo the requirements of the form complaint. Plaintiff 

also states that when he received the September 3, 2024 Order dismissing this case, he filed 

another motion with “proof” that he had filed the first motion. The Court has confirmed 

that it received no filings from Plaintiff between July 9, 2024 and October 22, 2024, when 

it received his Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff has offered nothing in his Motion for 

Reconsideration to demonstrate that he filed a motion for extension of time, or any other 

Case 2:24-cv-00509-JAT--ASB Document 18 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

motion, after he received the July 9, 2024 Order. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will direct the Clerk of Court to mail Plaintiff a 

copy of the docket in this case.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17) is denied.

(2) The Clerk of Court must mail Plaintiff a copy of the docket in this case.

(3) This case must remain closed.

Dated this 20th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-00509-JAT--ASB Document 18 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 4