Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02046/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02046-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

1

 As noted previously, Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b) for cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. See

Jenkins v. Veliz, No. CV 95-0142-TUC-RMB (D. Ariz. June 21, 1995) (doc. 13); Jenkins

v. Veliz, CV 95-0711-TUC-RMB (SLV) (D. Ariz. December 19, 1995) (doc. 3); Jenkins v.

Bohland, CV 06-938-PHX-SRB (DKD) (D. Ariz. July 17, 2006) (doc. 12); Jenkins v.

Marlowe, CV 06-0160-TUC-DCB (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2006) (doc. 5).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Junies A. Jenkins,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Susan R. Bolton, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-2046-PHX-RCB (DKD) 

ORDER

Plaintiff Junies A. Jenkins, an inmate in the Arizona Department of Corrections

(ADC), filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court, matter No. CV2011-014660,

alleging claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388

(1971), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.1

 (Doc. 1.) On October 20, 2011, the United States

removed the Complaint to federal court on behalf of U.S. District Court Judges Bolton,

Teilborg, Bury, and Rosenblatt, who were each named as Defendants. (Id.) In an Order filed

on December 9, 2011, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action without leave to

amend. (Doc. 14.) Apparently prior to receiving a copy of that Order, Plaintiff filed two

documents captioned as “Petition for Reconsideration Petition for Court Order” and “Motion

to Joinder by Supplimental [sic] Amendment Pleading.” (Doc. 17-19.) On December 23,

Case 2:11-cv-02046-RCB--DKD Document 20 Filed 01/13/12 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 -

2011, apparently after receiving a copy of the December 9, 2011 Order, Plaintiff filed a

“Notice of Appreciation” regarding the dismissal of this action. (Doc. 19.) To the extent that

any relief is sought in any of these filings, such relief will be denied. 

In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asks the Court to order the Arizona

Department of Corrections to provide copies of records and opposes a motion to dismiss filed

by the Defendants, which was denied as moot. Plaintiff attaches copies of requests to ADC

officials seeking copies of his mental health records. 

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the 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, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

(D. Ariz. 1992). 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff in part attempted state law claims for exploitation of a

vulnerable adult, apparently referring to himself, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes

(ARS) §§ 46-455 and 14-5101. Because Plaintiff failed to state a claim or to even allege

facts that could plausibly give rise to a claim for violation of his federal rights in his

Complaint, the Complaint was dismissed without leave to amend. Even if the attachments

to the current motion were arguably relevant to Plaintiff’s state law claims, they are not

relevant to his federal claims and they afford no basis for reconsideration. Otherwise,

Plaintiff has not alleged or shown that the Court committed clear error or that it’s prior ruling

was manifestly unjust. Plaintiff also has not alleged or shown an intervening change in

controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. 

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for joinder, in which he seeks to add a Defendant to

Case 2:11-cv-02046-RCB--DKD Document 20 Filed 01/13/12 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 -

this case. That motion will be denied as moot. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and joinder and his

Notice of Appreciation are denied to the extent that any relief is sought therein. (Doc. 17-

19.)

DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02046-RCB--DKD Document 20 Filed 01/13/12 Page 3 of 3