Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00904/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00904-1/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Ho, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Benjamin Griego, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-904-PHX-GMS (MEA)

ORDER

On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff Steven Ho, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation

of America-Saguaro Correctional Center (CCA-SCC), filed a pro se civil rights Complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May

18, 2011 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint

because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an

amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On June 23, 2011,

Plaintiff filed another “First Amended Complaint,” which the Court construed as a Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). On July 6, 2011, the Court dismissed the Second Amended

Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim (Doc. 14), and the Clerk of Court

entered Judgment (Doc. 15).

Pending before the Court are the following Motions:

(1) July 1, 2011 Motion Requesting Defendant Provide Plaintiff with More Paper

(Doc. 13);

Case 2:11-cv-00904-GMS--MEA Document 25 Filed 08/04/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

(2) July 8, 2011 Motion to Move Forward with Case, in which Plaintiff requests

that the Court proceed “without the Warden’s answer concerning the grievance

issues of this case” (Doc. 16);

(3) July 8, 2011 Motion to Speed up Process, in which Plaintiff requests that the

Court grant him a preliminary injunction (Doc. 17); 

(4) July 8, 2011 Motion to Disregard Previous Motion Requesting More Time to

Complete Legal Documents (Doc. 18);

(5) July 28, 2011 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 21);

and 

(6) July 28, 2011 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 23).

This case has been dismissed. Plaintiff’s Motions are therefore moot and will be

denied.

To the extent that Plaintiff intends the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

Complaint to be treated as a Motion for Reconsideration, “[m]otions to reconsider are

appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp.

1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct

manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v.

Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 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 Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

The Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), the July 6, 2011

Order of Dismissal, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.

The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s July 1, 2011 Motion Requesting Defendant Provide Plaintiff with

More Paper (Doc. 13) is denied as moot.

(2) Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 Motion to Move Forward with Case (Doc. 16) is denied

Case 2:11-cv-00904-GMS--MEA Document 25 Filed 08/04/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

as moot.

(3) Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 Motion to Speed up Process (Doc. 17) is denied as

moot.

(4) Plaintiff’s July 8, 2011 Motion to Disregard Previous Motion Requesting More

Time to Complete Legal Documents (Doc. 18) is denied as moot.

(5) Plaintiff’s July 28, 2011 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

(Doc. 21) is denied.

(6) Plaintiff’s July 28, 2011 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 23)

is denied as moot.

(7) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00904-GMS--MEA Document 25 Filed 08/04/11 Page 3 of 3