Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00280/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00280-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allan K. Morgal,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Edward Williams, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-280-TUC-CKJ

 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion in Limine # 1 to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Eldon

Vail’s Opinions and Report (Doc. 184). A response has not been filed. See LRCiv 7.2(g)

(no response is to be filed unless ordered by the court).

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate an 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 purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors

of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779

F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). However, motions for

reconsideration are disfavored. See generally Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equipment, Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, a motion for

reconsideration is not to be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had already

thought through – rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohanan Roofing, Inc.,

99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983) (limiting motions for reconsideration to cases where

Case 4:12-cv-00280-CKJ Document 185 Filed 04/05/16 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 -

the court has patently misunderstood a party, where the court has made a decision outside

the adversarial issues presented to the court, where the court has made an error not of

reasoning but of apprehension, or where there has been a controlling or significant change

in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court); see also United States

v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz. 1998).

Plaintiff asserts the Court incorrectly equated the two experts’ proposed testimony

in finding that both should be excluded, does not give due credit to contrary Ninth Circuit

law, and leaves to chance whether jurors’ “common sense” will be “informed by an

accurate understanding of the procedures and policies for handcuffing and use of force.”

Motion (Doc. 184), p. 1. Plaintiff’s expert, Eldon Vail, is offered to provide testimony

as to the evaluation of the factors to consider where force is excessive, “the relationship

between the need for force and the amount of force used, the extent of injuries, the threat

reasonably perceived by responsible officers, attempts to mitigate the amount of force

used, and whether force was used in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.”

Response to Motion in Limine (Doc. 162), p. 2. Although Plaintiff asserts such testimony

does not weigh the credibility (rather, Plaintiff asserts Mr. Vail accepts the facts as

alleged by Plaintiff for purposes of this opinion) and does not offer an opinion on the

ultimate issue, it appears that Mr. Vail’s opinions either weigh the credibility of

Plaintiff’s allegations or, if those allegations are accepted, gives an opinion as to how the

jury should view those facts. The Court finds that, in this case which does not present

complex facts, this testimony would improperly invade the role of the jury and would not

properly assist the jury in assessing the facts.

Morever, Plaintiff asserts Mr. Vail would also offer opinions about the prisoner

grievance process. The Court has previously determined that the expert’s opinion for

offering opinions regarding the Arizona Department of Corrections’ (“ADC”) failure to

fully investigate the incident should be precluded. Similarly, Mr. Vail’s opinions as to

the prisoner grievance process is not relevant to a determination of whether Defendant

Case 4:12-cv-00280-CKJ Document 185 Filed 04/05/16 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 -

in this case applied force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or

whether Defendant maliciously and sadistically applied force for the purpose of causing

harm. 

The Court finds Plaintiff has not established reconsideration of this issue is

appropriate. Rather, Plaintiff is requesting this Court to rethink what this Court has

already thought through.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion in Limine # 1 to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Eldon

Vail’s Opinions and Report (Doc. 184) is DENIED.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2016.

Case 4:12-cv-00280-CKJ Document 185 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 3