Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00652/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00652-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Moore, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bruce Kanter, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0652-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On December 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights Second Amended

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2011, we issued an order under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, directing defendants Kanter, Macabuhay and Coen to answer the Second

Amended Complaint and dismissing claims against defendants Ryan and Adu-Tutu for

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against them (doc. 52). We now have before us plaintiff’s

motions for reconsideration and for leave to file a third amended complaint (docs. 56 and 59).

A court “will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order 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). 

In our order we concluded that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege that defendants

Ryan and Adu-Tutu acted with deliberate indifference. We stated that “[t]hreadbare recitals

of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,” are not

Case 2:10-cv-00652-FJM Document 68 Filed 03/04/11 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 -

sufficient under Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. (doc. 52 at 2) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009)). 

We reiterate our conclusion that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that

defendants Ryan and Adu-Tutu knew that plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm

and failed to take measures to abate it. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.

Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994). His proposed third amended complaint does not resolve this

deficiency and therefore the amendment would be futile. See Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska,

543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration

and for leave to file a third amended complaint (docs. 56 and 59). 

DATED this 4th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00652-FJM Document 68 Filed 03/04/11 Page 2 of 2