Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01094/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01094-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

John C. Cooper, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-1094 PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr. filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s February 23, 2012 order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss. Doc. 19; see

Doc. 17. In that order, the Court dismissed Farnham’s complaint for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 17 at 2. The Court referred Farnham to 

three prior orders issued by Judge Neil V. Wake dismissing Farnham’s substantially 

identical complaint, first with leave to amend and then with prejudice. Id.; see Case No. 

2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. Farnham now requests reconsideration as to 

his claims against Defendant Forster only. Doc. 19 at 1. 

 Farnham’s motion does not meet the standards for reconsideration under Local 

Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1), which states that “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a 

motion for reconsideration . . . 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.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th 

Case 2:11-cv-01094-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Cir. 2003). Farnham does not argue that the Court erred in dismissing his complaint; nor 

does he present new facts or legal theories that he could not have presented earlier. 

Rather, Farnham argues that “he now has an understanding of what the court has been 

referring to in reference to suing defendants in their official capacity and should of [sic] 

sued them in their individual capacity.” Doc. 19 at 1. This is not a proper basis to 

reconsider the dismissal of Farnham’s complaint. 

 The Court is also not persuaded that Farnham would have a claim against 

Defendant Forster for destruction of his property if he could simply correct or refile his 

complaint “using the proper language.” Doc. 19 at 1. In addition to finding that the 

Eleventh Amendment barred Farnham’s complaints against individuals in their official 

capacity, Judge Wake previously found that Farnham had failed to allege sufficient facts 

to state a claim. See Case No. 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Docs. 6, 8, 10. The Court 

quoted from Judge Wake’s final order: “[N]one of Farnham’s allegations against any 

Defendant – especially his allegations of intent – rise ‘above the speculative level.’ 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any number of circumstances could explain Farnham’s loss 

of property.” Doc. 17 at 2 (quoting 2:11-CV-00192-PHX-NVW, Doc. 10 at 4). The 

Court went on to find that “Mr. Farnham’s instant complaint provides no new legal 

theories or relevant factual allegations to cure the deficiencies of his prior cause of 

action.” Doc. 17 at 2-3. Farnham has not shown that the Court’s order was in error or 

that he now has sufficient new facts or legal theories to support his claims. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Jonathon Alan Farnham, Sr.’s motion for 

reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied. 

 Dated this 21st day of March, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01094-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/21/12 Page 2 of 2