Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00834/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00834-12/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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rick Alton Foley,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0834-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Rick Alton Foley, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Florence, Arizona, filed this civil rights action against various officials of the Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADOC). Broderick, who was the only remaining Defendant,

moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for summary judgment.

The Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion for summary judgment.

(Doc. #76.) Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration. (Doc. #78.) The Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. #78.)

I. Background

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that ADOC’s culinary staff had discontinued his

religious diet in response to Plaintiff’s grievances regarding “inadequate portions, quality,

quantity, and the issuance of non-vegetarian diet.” Plaintiff’s sole allegation in Count II

against Broderick was that in October 2004, Broderick declined to reinstate Plaintiff’s

religious diet “in furtherance of . . . [Chaplain Sabbagh’s] reprisal acts in relation to

Plaintiff’s grievances regarding the dietary system.” (Doc. #1 at 5.) 

Case 2:06-cv-00834-SMM-LOA Document 79 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies and for summary judgment on the ground that the only reason

Plaintiff’s diet had not been re-instated is that he refused to properly sign-up for it. (Doc.

# 58; Doc. #59 at 1.) Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss on the ground that Defendant

already argued exhaustion and the motion was denied. (Doc. #63.) He opposed summary

judgment, arguing only that he “raises the same issues or theories that Defendants did in their

response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Id.) 

The Court denied the motion to dismiss because the Court had denied Defendant’s

previous motion to dismiss, and the new motion, which the Court construed as a motion for

reconsideration, did not meet the standard for reconsideration. (Doc. #76 at 2.) But the Court

granted summary judgment to Defendant because he demonstrated that there was no genuine

issue of material fact regarding his alleged participation in a retaliatory refusal to reinstate

Plaintiff’s religious diet in October 2004. 

Defendant’s evidence—the affidavit of Aurora Aguilar, a hearing officer at ADOC’s

Central Office—showed that Plaintiff’s diet was discontinued because Plaintiff violated Food

Service rules. Plaintiff submitted no evidence—only his conclusory and speculative allegation

in the Complaint—that the diet was discontinued in retaliation for his grievances, and he did

not dispute that he was told to resubmit a form to reinstate the diet. Nor did he submit

evidence to show that Broderick’s conduct in forwarding certain documents caused any

alleged retaliation or that Broderick participated in any other manner regarding Plaintiff’s

religious diet. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976) (to state a valid claim

under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a specific injury as a result of specific

conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of

that defendant). Plaintiff asserted only that he raised “the same issues or theories” previously

raised by Defendant. The Court found that argument too vague to warrant consideration. See

Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Huey v. UPS, Inc., 165

F.3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Judges need not paw over the files without assistance from

the parties.”)). 

 Plaintiff then filed the pending Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. #78.) He argues

Case 2:06-cv-00834-SMM-LOA Document 79 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

that he did not have to exhaust his administrative remedies because he had been placed on the

Inmate Grievance Abuse List and that the Auguilar affidavit did not inform the Court of that

fact. (Id. at 4-6.) He asks the Court to strike the Aguilar affidavit because it is untruthful and

argues that the Court’s decision on summary judgment was based on the Aguilar affidavit.

(Id. at 6.)

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more

of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the

judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6)

requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction

with the court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds

for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.

1981).

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.” ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. “No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any

manner any oral or written argument made 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). 

Plaintiff’s arguments go to the issue of exhaustion of remedies. But the Court denied

Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of exhaustion. Whether Plaintiff was on the

Grievance Abuse list is irrelevant to the issues for summary judgment. Although Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00834-SMM-LOA Document 79 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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 -

makes a conclusory statement that “the Court did not have all the information that it needed

to make a decision about summary judgment against him in this case,” he alleges no newly

discovered evidence, no mistake or surprise, no relevant fraud by the adverse party, and no

intervening change in controlling law. Moreover, Plaintiff’s entire opposition to the summary

judgment motion consisted of the statement that he asserted “the same issues and theories”

previously raised by the Defendants. (Doc. #63.) It is too late to object to Defendant’s

evidence. In short, Plaintiff has not presented any additional information to warrant

reconsideration of the Court’s previous order. See AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263.

Consequently, reconsideration is not appropriate, and the motion will be denied. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

(Doc. #78.)

DATED this 22nd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-00834-SMM-LOA Document 79 Filed 07/23/08 Page 4 of 4