Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01102/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01102-1/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Lowell McElyea, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1102-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Lowell McElyea seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying

his fourth motion for injunctive relief and dismissing his action due to his multiple frivolous

motions and filings, which were found to be malicious, vexatious, and designed to harass and

antagonize the Defendants (Doc. #158). Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against various officials and employees of the

Arizona Department of Corrections and of the Canteen Corporation (Docs. ##1, 137).

Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional right to free exercise of religion was violated because

he was improperly denied Kosher diets, required to write during the Sabbath, not allowed to

possess religious garments, required to shave, and not permitted to grow side locks as

required by his religion (Id.). In February 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff injunctive relief

and determined, inter alia that the refusal to ban Messianic Jews from Jewish religious

services and require an inmate to prove that he was Jewish did not substantially burden

Case 2:04-cv-01102-SMM-HCE Document 160 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 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 1

Plaintiff did not argue that he was required to attend Messianic Jewish services. 

- 2 -

Plaintiff’s free exercise of his religion1 (Doc. #156). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s actions

on the grounds that his conduct was malicious and vexatious (Id.).

II. Motion for Reconsideration

By motion filed in April 2007, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on the grounds that

since he was transferred to a new facility in December 2006 and has since been forced to

attend Messianic Jewish services (Doc. #158). Plaintiff contends that the Court’s prior Order

was based on a misrepresentation made by Defendant Mike Linderman, i.e. that Jewish

Orthodox and Messianic Jews worshiped separately (Id.; Doc. # 137, Exh. A at ¶ 11).

The Court may grant a party relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for misrepresentation or any other reasons justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

If the party is seeking relief based on misrepresentation, the motion shall be made within a

reasonable time, but not more than one year after the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

First, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration based on

misrepresentation is untimely. Second, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to

relief. Plaintiff does not argue or demonstrate that Linderman misrepresented the situation

at the time Linderman’s affidavit was filed. Plaintiff merely asserts that in December 2006,

after the Court’s Order dismissing his case, he was transferred to a facility where he is not

provided a separate service. Third, Plaintiff’s instant motion is based on information

unrelated to his underlying claims. Finally, the Court did not rely on Linderman’s affidavit

to dismiss Plaintiff’s action—the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action due to his own malicious

and vexatious conduct. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. #158).

DATED this 26th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01102-SMM-HCE Document 160 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 2