Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01941/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01941-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Francis A. Grandinetti, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

R. Reyes, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1941-PHX-MHM (BPV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Francis A. Grandinetti, II, who is confined in the CCA-Saguaro Correctional

Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint, which the Court construed as

being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 31, 2007, the Court dismissed the

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because more than three of the prior actions Plaintiff

has filed in federal courts have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or as failing to state

a claim. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s Complaint did not allege imminent danger of

serious physical injury.

On November 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a

Motion to Amend/Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. 

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “Any motion to alter or

amend a judgment shall be filed not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.”

Judgment in this action was entered on October 31, 2007. Because the time for filing a

Case 2:07-cv-01941-MHM--BPV Document 9 Filed 04/15/08 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 -

motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) has passed, the Court will deny the

Motion.

On March 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Continue Judgment and

Findings/Order,” which the Court will construe as a 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). “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 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)). Plaintiff has not presented the Court with newly

discovered evidence nor has he alleged an intervening change in controlling law. The Court

has reviewed both Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Order of dismissal and finds no basis for

reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s March 7, 2008 Motion.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s November 15, 2007 Motion (Doc. #7 ) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s March 7, 2008 Motion (Doc. #8) is denied.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01941-MHM--BPV Document 9 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2