Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02014/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02014-10/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Douglas Lee Horn, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2014-PHX-SMM 

ORDER

Plaintiff Douglas Lee Horn seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order granting

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 225). Plaintiff argues that he exhausted

his administrative remedies and that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical

needs and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act (Docs.

222, 225).

The Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment;

(5) a satisfied, released, or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reasons justifying relief

from the operation of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 

First, the Court, having ruled that Plaintiff sufficiently exhausted his administrative

remedies, is bewildered as to why Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of an issue upon which the

Court ruled in his favor. The Court declines to reconsider its finding that Plaintiff properly

exhausted his administrative remedies. Second, Plaintiff merely reasserts arguments he

previously raised and fails to present any newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff appears to

indicate that he could not sufficiently defend Defendants’ motion because the Court refused

to grant him counsel or provide him an expert. Plaintiff was not entitled to appointed counsel

Case 2:04-cv-02014-SMM-LOA Document 226 Filed 10/12/07 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 -

and despite his indigency, Plaintiff remained responsible for obtaining his own expert in this

civil action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration will be denied. And because

Plaintiff is merely reasserting prior arguments or raising patently frivolous issues, the Court

will not entertain any additional challenges to the Order granting Defendants summary

judgment. Any further motion filed by Plaintiff in this case, unless addressing issues related

to taxation of costs and assessment of attorney fees, will be summarily denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to dismiss court’s 9/10/07

decision on summary judgment” (Doc. 225) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any motion filed by Plaintiff in this case, unless

addressing issues related to taxation of costs and assessment of attorney fees, will be

summarily denied.

DATED this 12th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02014-SMM-LOA Document 226 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 2