Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08009/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08009-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Henry Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Apache County, a local governmental 

entity; Michael Whiting, in his official and 

individual capacity, and Jocylynn Whiting, 

husband and wife, 

Defendants.

No. CV10-8009-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its November 15, 2011 order (Doc. 177) 

granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s § 1983 religious discrimination claim. 

Doc. 181. The Court will deny the motion. 

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 

3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied 

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

could not have been brought to [the Court=s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). This 

standard clearly has not been met. 

 

Case 3:10-cv-08009-DGC Document 182 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

 Plaintiff argues that evidence reviewed and cited by the Court in its November 15, 

2011 order shows that Plaintiff established a prima facie case of religious discrimination. 

To make this argument, however, Plaintiff points to portions of affidavits that were not 

cited for the Court in Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment. The 

Court had no obligation to search the record given Plaintiff’s failure to provide citations, 

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001), and 

the fact that it was able to do so on some issues does not mean that it erred in not finding 

nearby evidence – never cited by Plaintiff – on other issues. 

 Moreover, to show a prima facie case of discrimination Plaintiff must present 

evidence that “similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more 

favorably, or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to 

an inference of discrimination.” Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 603 

(9th Cir. 2004). Defendants made a number of factual assertions to show that LDS 

individuals were not treated more favorably and that the facts of this case do not give rise 

to an inference of discrimination. Doc. 177 at 9. Plaintiff responded “with a veritable 

blizzard of factual assertions,” id., none of which included a citation to the record. The 

Court is not convinced that the few items now cited in the motion for reconsideration 

effectively counter Defendants’ factual arguments, nor that the Court erred in failing to 

connect the dots between items of evidence contained in portions of the record it 

reviewed on other issues. Finding relevant evidence in the record is the responsibility of 

the parties, not the Court. 

 The Court is frustrated to have resolved the religious discrimination claim on the 

basis of Plaintiff’s failure to provide citations to the record. Cases should not be resolved 

that way. But in this era of heavy case loads, the Court of Appeals rightly has concluded 

that district courts should not take time and effort away from other cases in order to find 

evidence parties should find and cite on their own. 

 

Case 3:10-cv-08009-DGC Document 182 Filed 12/01/11 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 181) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 1st day of December, 2011. 

Case 3:10-cv-08009-DGC Document 182 Filed 12/01/11 Page 3 of 3