Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00834/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00834-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Rick Alton Foley, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0834-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Rick Alton Foley seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order that dismissed

Plaintiff’s claim against Senior Chaplain Sabbagh and allowed Plaintiff to proceed against

Chaplain Broaderick (Doc. 49). Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in regards to a recitation

of the relevant materials and that Sabbagh was not a party to the Motion to Dismiss (id.).

Plaintiff maintains that the Court is biased against him and appears to be alleging that the

Court’s actions are designed to ensure that he will not prevail in the instant action (id.). 

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

Case 2:06-cv-00834-SMM-LOA Document 72 Filed 01/10/08 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 -

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)). The Court properly considered

the evidence and facts in ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and Sabbagh joined in

on the Motion to Dismiss originally filed only by Broaderick (Doc. #32 at 1, n.1). Plaintiff

has failed to establish that any of the aforementioned circumstances exist to warrant

reconsideration fo the Court’s Order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

warrants denial.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 49).

DATED this 9th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00834-SMM-LOA Document 72 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 2