Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02567/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02567-2/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed Canteen Food Services as a Defendant (Doc.

#6). Plaintiff also sued an “unknown” breakfast supervisor and an assistant supervisor;

however, the Court did not order service on these two individuals (Id.).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenghiz K. Stewart,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Canteen Food Services, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2567-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC),

filed this civil rights action against Vanessa Klein, former Food Service Supervisor with

Canteen Food Services, the company contracted to provide food services to inmates (Doc.

#1).1

 Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant Klein’s Motion for

Reconsideration of the December 27, 2006 Summary Judgment Order (Doc. #49); (2)

Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Relief from Previous Order (Doc. #52); (3) Defendant’s Motion

to Strike (Doc. #67); and (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Traverse (Doc. #73). The

Court will deny the motions.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that his free exercise of religion was hindered

because he was often served meals that contained meat or eggs, which are not part of his

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 8
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

Plaintiff’s two other counts were dismissed for failure to state a claim (Doc. #6).

- 2 -

religious lacto vegetarian diet (Doc. #1 at 4).2 Defendant moved for summary judgment on

the grounds that (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies; (2)

Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendant; and (3) Defendant is entitled to qualified

immunity (Doc. #31). The Court denied Defendant’s motion except as to Plaintiff’s claim

for injunctive relief (Doc. #48). Defendant’s failure to file a substantive reply brief in

support of the motion was a factor in the Court’s decision because she failed to rebut any of

the arguments or evidence in Plaintiff’s response. Summary judgment was denied on

exhaustion because Defendant failed to demonstrate that there were remedies available to

Plaintiff after his requests for grievance forms were denied (Id. at 5-6). The Court also

denied Defendant’s request for summary judgment for failure to state a claim and on

qualified immunity grounds. The Court determined that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that

Defendant was linked to the alleged violation (Id. at 8-9). On the qualified immunity issue,

the Court found that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendant violated a

constitutional right and, because Defendant failed to address one step of the qualified

immunity analysis, summary judgment was denied (Id. at 7-10). 

Defendant contended that the Order was manifestly unjust and moved for

reconsideration (Doc. #49). She argued that the Order was based on a misinterpretation of

the ADC’s grievance policies and an incorrect reliance on the ADC Diet Reference Manual

(Id. at 1). Defendant further argued that the Court ruled on the qualified immunity issue

without full consideration of Defendant’s argument regarding the lack of a constitutional

violation (Id. at 4). 

The Court issued an Order providing Plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the motion

(Doc. #61). In his response, Plaintiff argued that reconsideration is not warranted because

there was no manifest error with the summary judgment Order, and Defendant did not

present any new evidence that was not available at the time she originally moved for

summary judgment (Doc. #68 at 2, 6-7). 

Defendant replied that supplementing the record should be permissible to correct the

Court’s misapplication of the policies governing service of religious meals to inmates in

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 8
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

In her motion to strike, Defendant also sought to strike Plaintiff’s reply brief in

support of his Motion for Monetary Damages (See reply, Doc. #65; See motion, Doc. #51).

Because the Court has already ruled on Plaintiff’s motion for damages, Defendant’s request

to strike the reply is denied as moot (See Order, Doc. #58).

- 3 -

lockdown units (Doc. #72 at 2). Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s unorthodox response to

the Motion for Summary Judgment “manipulated the procedural posture of the case” and

caused Defendant to forgo submitting a reply brief in support of the motion (Id. at 5-6). The

reply also reasserted the contentions set forth in the motion for reconsideration (Id. at 7-15).

Plaintiff then filed a motion seeking leave to file a sur-response to Defendant’s reply and the

new arguments raised therein (Doc. #73). Defendant opposed the motion (Doc. #74).

Meanwhile, Plaintiff filed a “Delayed Motion Seeking Relief from Previous Order and

Seeking Partial Relief from Current Order” in which he renewed an objection to the Court’s

Screening Order dismissing two Defendants from this action (Doc. #52). Plaintiff added an

objection to the summary judgment Order barring any claim for damages against Defendant

in her official capacity (Id. at 2-3). Defendant opposed the motion and argued that it is

essentially a request for reconsideration that is not warranted (Doc. #54). Plaintiff replied

and contended that he does not seek reconsideration; rather, he presents new arguments as

a result of the summary judgment Order issued by the Court (Doc. #64). Defendant then

filed a motion to either strike Plaintiff’s reply or provide her leave to respond to the

objections raised therein (Doc. #67).3

 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

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

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with

a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels

Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D.Haw. 1988). Reconsideration is only 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). “No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or

written argument made

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 8
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

4

Defendant’s 15-page reply does not comport with the local rules governing the length

of motions and memoranda (Doc. #72). Under Rule 7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure, a reply brief, including its supporting memorandum, shall not exceed 11 pages.

- 4 -

in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers

Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D.Ariz. 2003). 

At the onset, the Court notes that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration does not

present any newly discovered evidence, is not based on an intervening change in controlling

law, and repeats many arguments that were made in support of her summary judgment

motion. Defendant argues that repetition is necessary to avoid manifest injustice because the

Court misapplied facts and misinterpreted the evidence submitted in support of the original

motion (Doc. #49 at 1). Most of the contentions set forth in Defendant’s pending motion,

however, are more appropriate for a reply memorandum in support of summary judgment,

which Defendant never submitted. For example, she responds to Plaintiff’s

affidavit—submitted with his response to the summary judgment motion—in which he

described his attempts to utilize the grievance system (Id. at 4-5). Also, the most extensive

argument section in the motion for reconsideration concerns Defendant’s alleged lack of

involvement in a constitutional deprivation and lack of authority to remedy the situation (Id.

at 8-12). Defendant’s liability happened to be Plaintiff’s most extensive argument in his

response brief (Doc. #38 at 7-12). When a defendant does not object to a plaintiff’s

declarations or otherwise controvert the matters described therein in a reply memorandum,

those facts are deemed undisputed. 10A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2722 (3d ed. 1998) (“[a]s is true of other material

introduced on a summary judgment motion, uncertified or otherwise inadmissible documents

may be considered by the court if not challenged”) (footnotes omitted). Plaintiff is therefore

correct in his contention that Defendant’s attempt to re-argue the same claims is simply not

appropriate in a motion for reconsideration (Doc. #68 at 9-10, 12). 

In her reply in support of the motion for reconsideration,4

 Defendant appears to argue

that her failure to file a reply brief supporting the summary judgment motion should be

excused due to her confusion caused by Plaintiff’s unorthodox titling of briefs and litigation

tactics and “the lack of clarity” as to what the Local Rules allowed her to file (Doc. #72 at

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Notice of the response filing was electronically mailed to pcoppinger@ghlaw.com,

khart@ghlaw.com, and gcote@ghlaw.com (Doc. #38, Receipt).

- 5 -

5-7). These excuses are patently insufficient to show good cause for failing to submit a

reply. First, when Plaintiff’s response brief—titled “Motion Requesting Court to Deny

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Stay Defendant’s Motion until Plaintiff

Receives Requested Discovery”—was filed, the Court docketed the motion as “Response to

Motion re 31 Motion for Summary Judgment Defendant Vanessa Klein’s Motion for

Summary Judgment” (Doc. #38). The U.S. District Court District of Arizona Case

Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system reflects that three defense counsel

representatives were sent electronic notice of this filing and, as on the docket, the notice

referred to the filing as “Response to Motion re [31] Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc.

#38, Receipt).5

 The record indicates that there has been no substitution of counsel for

Defendant. This direct notification to Defendant of a response to the summary judgment

motion filed by Plaintiff should have alleviated any confusion that may have stemmed from

the title of Plaintiff’s brief. 

Defendant maintains that she properly responded to Plaintiff’s brief, which she refers

to as a discovery motion, and argued that no discovery was necessary to rule on the merits

of the summary judgment motion (Doc. #72 at 5; Doc. #41). But Defendant did not address

the bulk of Plaintiff’s brief, which disputed the factual allegations in Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #38 at 7). Plaintiff directly responded to the arguments in

Defendant’s summary judgment motion; specifically, he argued that (1) he did state a claim

against Defendant as evidenced by the Court’s own screening Order that required an answer

to his allegations (Id. at 8-9); (2) Defendant’s inaction and failure to remedy the situation

made her liable for the alleged constitutional violation (Id. at 10); (3) Defendant is not

entitled to qualified immunity (Id. at 13); (4) injunctive relief was proper (Id.); and (5) he

attempted to properly exhaust his remedies but the issue remained unresolved (Id. at 12). In

addition, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit with his filing that focused almost entirely on the

issue of exhaustion and his attempts to grieve (Doc. #39). Contrary to Defendant’s

implication that the Court may have improperly construed this filing as a response, Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

The CM/ECF Receipt confirms that the three registered defense counsel

representatives were sent notice of this Order (Doc. #46, Receipt).

7

The only point worth noting is Defendant’s objection to the Court’s reliance on

information presented in the ADC Diet Reference Manuel, which Defendant proffered in

support of her motion, because the policy described therein refers to the service of meals to

inmates in general population, not in lockdown (See Doc. #49 at 8). Even when excluding

this provision, there remains a disputed issue of fact as to whether Defendant’s acts or failure

to act resulted in a constitutional deprivation.

- 6 -

obviously and more than adequately set forth his own defenses to the summary judgment

motion, and he supported his claims of exhaustion with affidavit evidence. Curiously,

Defendant chose to reply only to Plaintiff’s discovery issues and wholly avoided those

arguments opposing summary judgment. Even assuming, arguendo, that it was not

clear that Plaintiff’s brief was a response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion, the

Court made it explicitly so when it issued its Order stating that, “[t]he Court will consider

plaintiff’s Motion and Affidavit filed as Documents 38 and 39 as his response to defendant

Klein’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. #46).6

 This Order was docketed on

September 21, 2006 (Id.). Defendant contends that “given the protracted timeframes

involved” and the failure of the Local Rules to address this unusual situation, she did not

seek to file a reply (Doc. #72 at 6). But there is nothing in the Local Rules that precluded

Defendant from seeking leave of the Court to file a reply in light of its Order designating

Plaintiff’s motion and affidavit as a response. The Order partially denying summary

judgment was issued on December 27, 2006; thus, Defendant had three months after the

Court’s clarifying Order to attempt to address Plaintiff’s arguments and affidavit testimony

(Doc. #48).

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion falls well short of establishing any basis

for reconsideration.7

 Consequently, Defendant’s motion will be denied. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief and Defendant’s Motion to Strike 

Plaintiff moves the Court to (1) re-instate his claim for money damages against

Defendant in her official capacity, and (2) re-instate his claims against Canteen Food

Services, Inc. and an unknown assistant (Doc. #52). Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s

motion is more aptly viewed as a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment Order

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 -

(Doc. #48), which dismissed the money damages claim against Defendant in her official

capacity, and the screening Order (Doc. #6), which dismissed Canteen and the unknown

assistant (Doc. #54, Def.’s Resp.). As with Defendant’s motion, there are no grounds

presented that warrant reconsideration.

Even assuming Defendant is liable in her official capacity, money damages are

unavailable. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). As to liability

on the part of Canteen Food Services, Inc., Plaintiff must demonstrate that there was an

official policy or custom that inflicted the alleged constitutional injury. Monell v. Dep’t of

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.

1991). Even when considering the new allegations in Plaintiff’s pending motion, he has

failed to state a claim against Canteen. As the Court explained in its screening Order, if

Plaintiff was able to discover the identity of the unknown assistant, he could seek leave of

the Court to amend his Complaint to name the individual as a Defendant (Doc. #6). Plaintiff

has not indicated that he discovered the name of the assistant. Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief

will therefore be denied. Defendant’s “Motion to Strike or in the Alternative for

Leave to Reply to the Prisoner Plaintiffs’ Objection Briefs” is actually a motion to strike

Plaintiff’s reply in support of his Motion for Relief (Doc. #67). Because the Court is denying

Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant’s motion to strike will be denied as moot.

IV. Motion for Leave to File a Traverse

In his motion, which is titled “Petition for Leave to File a Traverse to Discuss

Defendant’s Conclusory Allegations Against the Plaintiff in her March 30, 2007 Reply,”

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a sur-response to Defendant’s reply memorandum given that the

reply raised new arguments (Doc. #73). Plaintiff also moves the Court to stay its decision

on the motion for reconsideration so that he may meet with Defendant. For the reasons

discussed supra, a sur-response from Plaintiff is unnecessary. And Plaintiff’s motion does

not show good cause to stay the determination of Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff’s requests will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the December 27, 2006 Summary

Judgment Order (Doc. #49) is denied.

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 -

(2) Plaintiff’s Delayed Motion Seeking Relief from Previous Order and Seeking

Partial Relief from Current Order (Doc. #52) is denied.

(3) Defendant’s Motion to Strike or in the Alternative for Leave to Reply to the

Prisoner Plaintiff’s Objection Briefs (Doc. #67) is denied.

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Traverse (Doc. #73) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02567-MHM Document 77 Filed 05/16/07 Page 8 of 8