Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02554/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02554-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Jackson Ellsworth, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV 11-2554-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Dennis Kendall, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

Currently pending before the court is a “Motion for

Reconsideration to [sic] District Court Judge of Magistrate

Judge’s Order[]” filed by plaintiff pro se, James Jackson

Ellsworth, on January 9, 2013 (Doc. 23). Because this court

did not order the filing of a response to the reconsideration

motion, defendants did not file one. See LRCiv 7.2(g) (“No

response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed

unless ordered by the Court[.]”) As explained below, the court

hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion as moot. 

On December 18, 2012, three days prior to the scheduling

order’s December 21, 2012, time frame for filing dispositive 

Case 2:11-cv-02554-RCB Document 39 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

motions, the defendants filed a motion for extension of time

in which to file such motions. The defendants sought that

extension because defendant Kendall was on medical leave at

the time and “numerous Arizona Department of Corrections”

employees and Defendants’ counsel” were going to be out of

the office or temporarily unavailable “due to the holiday

season[.]” Mot. (Doc. 21) at 1:22-24. On December 26, 2012,

the Magistrate Judge granted that motion, allowing the

parties “until January 22, 2013, to file dispositive

motions[.]” Ord. (Doc. 22) at 1:15-16. 

In Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 2013 WL

1149937 (D.Ariz. March 20, 2013) (“Ellsworth I”), another of

plaintiff Ellsworth’s pending lawsuits, this court detailed

his non-compliance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), which governs

reconsideration motions. See id. at *1 - *2. As in

Ellsworth I, in this action plaintiff also has not made the

requisite showing of manifest error or new facts or legal

authority so as to warrant relief under that Rule. See LRCiv

7.2(g)(1) (emphasis added) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a

motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of

manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority

that could not have been brought to its attention earlier

with reasonable diligence.”) 

Even overlooking plaintiff Ellsworth’s non-compliance

with LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), still, he is not entitled to

reconsideration because, essentially, his motion has become

moot. The plaintiff advances several reasons as to why he is

entitled to reconsideration. At this juncture, the only one

Case 2:11-cv-02554-RCB Document 39 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

worth noting is plaintiff’s claim that he has been prejudiced

due to defendants’ extension of time. In asserting

prejudice, plaintiff indicated that he would “be forced to

request an extension to file his response to defendants[’]

motion for summary judgment.” Mot. (Doc. 23) at 7. 

Significantly, however, on February 25, 2013, the Magistrate

Judge granted plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time in

which to file a response to defendants’ summary judgment

motion. Although plaintiff requested an extension until

March 31, 2013, Mot. (Doc. 29) at 2-3, the Magistrate Judge

extended plaintiff’s filing time frame until April 5, 2013. 

Ord. (Doc. 32) at 1:15-17. In light of the foregoing, the

court finds that plaintiff’s motion is moot. Cf. Pitts v.

Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011)

(citations omitted) (“[I]f events subsequent to the filing of

the case resolve the parties’ dispute, [the court] must

dismiss the case as moot[.]”)

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

(1) the “Motion for Reconsideration to [sic] District

Court Judge of Magistrate Judge’s Order[]” (Doc. 23) is

DENIED.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2013.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se James

Jackson Ellsworth

Case 2:11-cv-02554-RCB Document 39 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 3