Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00629/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00629-1/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

Jorge Ramirez Chavez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

CCA/Eloy Detention Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-629-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

On February 11, 2008, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure

to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m) and for failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to Rule

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #16. Plaintiff subsequently filed a

motion to reinstate the case. Dkt. #18. The Court denied the motion in an order dated

April 4, 2008. Dkt. #20. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.

Dkt. #21. The Court will deny the motion.

Plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration on May 12, 2008, more than a month

after the Court filed its order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case. See Dkt.

##20-21. Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]bsent good cause

shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later than ten (10) days after the date

of the filing of the Order that is the subject of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). The good cause

standard primarily considers the diligence of the party filing the untimely motion. See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff does not

address the good cause standard or his diligence in meeting the filing deadline set forth in

Case 2:06-cv-00629-DGC-LOA Document 22 Filed 05/28/08 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 -

Local Rule 7.2(g)(2). The Court accordingly will deny the motion for reconsideration as

untimely. See Baker v. D.A.R.A. II, Inc., No. CV-06-2887-PHX-LOA, 2008 WL 824000, at

*1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2008) (denying untimely motion for reconsideration where “good cause

[had] not been shown.”) (citing LRCiv 7.2(g)(2)); see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other

litigants.”);Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district

court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”).

Even if Plaintiff had shown good cause, his motion lacks merit. Plaintiff’s attempt

to serve Defendant Sells at her place of work via certified mail does not comport with the

service requirements of Rule 4. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (service on an individual is effected

by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally, by leaving

a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable

age and discretion who resides there, or by delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized

to receive service of process); see also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1(d) (same). Moreover, the time

for service of Defendant Sells has long since passed and this case has been dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #21) is denied.

DATED this 28th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00629-DGC-LOA Document 22 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2