Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01874/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01874-3/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

Robert Wayne Murray, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 01-1874-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Wayne Murray, a pro se inmate, seeks reconsideration of this Court’s

order dismissing as unexhausted his claims that his constitutional right to exercise his

religion were violated due to the denial of his request for a Kara and Kesh (Docs. ##121,

122). Plaintiff argued that the grievance system in 2000 was inadequate because he could

not challenge the return of a grievance as unprocessed (Doc. #122).

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration 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 v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of

asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through — rightly or

wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).

Case 2:01-cv-01874-SMM-LOA Document 137 Filed 04/04/07 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

- 2 -

The Court properly considered all the evidence and arguments presented. The record

indicates that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim regarding the Kara because he filed his

grievance appeal with regard to the Kara after he filed the instant action. As to Plaintiff's

claim pertaining to the practice of Kesh, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the law. Plaintiff's initial grievance was

not in compliance with the applicable ADC rules, and therefore, he failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Plaintiff has not presented the Court with newly discovered

evidence, has not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error or that the decision was

manifestly unjust, and has not established that there was an intervening change in controlling

law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #122)

is DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2007.

Case 2:01-cv-01874-SMM-LOA Document 137 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2