Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00670-7/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

Allan Kenneth Morgal, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-0670-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Maricopa County Board of )

Supervisors, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Currently pending before the court is plaintiff pro se

Allan Kenneth Morgal’s “Motion to Reconsider Ruling on

6/5/2012[,]” entered on June 6, 2012. Mot. (Doc. 156) at 1. 

For the reasons set forth below, because plaintiff Morgal has

not met the standards for reconsideration in accordance with

LRCiv 7.2(g), the court denies his motion.

Discussion

 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be

granted only in rare circumstances.” U.S. v. Vistoso

Partners, LLC, 2011 WL 2550387, at *1 (D.Ariz. June 27, 2011

(citation omitted). Consistent with that view, LRCiv 

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 159 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 5
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 -

7.2(g)(1) unequivocally states, in part:

The 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)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff Morgal has shown

neither. 

Plaintiff Morgal did, as LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) requires, “point

out with specificity the matters that [he] believes were

overlooked or misapprehended by the Court” in its order filed 

June 6, 2012. See id. Even with that specificity, however,

plaintiff’s motion does not provide a proper basis for

granting reconsideration. In the first place, as to some

issues, and particularly as to the central issue of his

diligence in seeking amendment of the Rule 16 order, plaintiff

is asking this court “‘to rethink what [it] . . . already

thought through, rightly or wrongly.’” O’Connor v. Scottsdale

Healthcare Corp., 2012 WL 2106365, at *1 (June 11, 2012)

(quoting Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors,

Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D.Ariz. 2003)) (other citation

omitted). Asking a court to rethink its analysis is not a

proper basis for seeking reconsideration, however. See id. 

In a similar vein, and in direct contravention of LRCiv

7.2(g)(1), plaintiff Morgal’s motion is rife with “repeat 

. . . argument[s]” he made in connection with Morgal v.

Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 2012 WL 2029719 (D.Ariz.

June 6, 2012); Doc. 152 (same). See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“No

motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any . . .

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 159 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 5
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 -

argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to

the motion that resulted in the Order.”) For example,

plaintiff reiterates his by now familiar refrain that the

defendant has not fully cooperated in discovery and has misled

the court with respect to the dating and relevancy of the

National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”)

report. Such repetitious arguments cannot form the basis for

relief under LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 

Further, to a certain extent, plaintiff’s reconsideration

motion reflects nothing more than his disagreement or

dissatisfaction with this court’s prior order. Such

“dissatisfaction” or disagreement is not “a proper basis for

reconsideration[]” though. See Spain v. EMC Mortg. Co., 2008

WL 2328358, at *2 (D.Ariz. June 4, 2008) (citing O’Neal v.

Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 1721891, at *4 (E.D.Cal.

2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

(“Plaintiffs[’] assert[ion][ ] with great vehemence and a

degree of disdain, that they disagree with the court’s

findings[ ] . . . is not grounds for . . . grant[ing] . . .

reconsideration.”); see also Dennis v. Ayers, 2008 WL 1989304,

at *1 (N.D.Cal. 2008) (Petitioner’s disagreement “with the

Court’s prior resolution of the claim . . . is, of course,

[an] insufficient [basis] for . . . granting] a motion for

reconsideration.”)). 

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), governing the “[f]orm and content” of

motions for reconsideration, expressly provides that

“[f]ailure to comply with th[at] subsection may be grounds for

denial of the motion.” Exercising its discretion under that

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 159 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 5
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 -

Rule, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

because he did not make the requisite showing thereunder for

such relief. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 

Taking into account plaintiff’s pro se status, the court

is compelled to point out several ways in which he

fundamentally misapprehends the June 6, 2012 order, as well as

the Ninth Circuit’s decision (Doc. 122-1). As to the former,

plaintiff claims that “pursuant to prison mail rules[]” his

reply was “timely and should [have] be[en] considered by the

court.” Mot. (Doc. 156) at 1 (citing Doc. 152 at 7 and 8). 

The court is uncertain as to what plaintiff means by “prison

mail rules.” As detailed in Morgal, however, plaintiff’s

reply, dated March 28, 2012, and which he claims was mailed

that same date, was not timely, even including three

additional days for service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). 

See Morgal, 2012 WL 202971 at *3; and Doc. 152 at 7:16-8:12. 

As to footnote four, plaintiff seems to suggest that this

court found that he improperly failed to specifically request

or move for modification of the Rule 16 scheduling order. See

Mot. (Doc. 156) at 2. “[F]ollow[ing] the approach endorsed by

the Ninth Circuit[,]” this court did not require such a

specific request or motion, however. Morgal, 2012 WL 202971,

at *5 n. 4; Doc. 152 at 12 n. 4. Instead, the court

explicitly “construe[d] plaintiff Morgal’s motion for leave to

amend as a motion to modify the scheduling order under Rule

16.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Turning to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, plaintiff states

that the defendant has “not cooperated with any discovery as 

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 159 Filed 06/21/12 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

. . . noted by the 9th Circuit[’]s ruling.” Mot. (Doc. 156) at

2. Further, plaintiff states that “discovery was not

completed as noted by the 9th Circuit remand.” Id. These are

both misstatements as to what the Ninth Circuit found. As set

forth in Morgal, in relevant part:

[T]he Ninth Circuit found that ‘[w]hen the 

district court granted summary judgment

for the [Board],’ plaintiff ‘had under submission 

five requests that the district court order the 

[Board] to produce a specified official 

report purporting to identify specific 

systemic problems with healthcare services 

at the Maricopa County Jail. . . . In light 

of those five unresolved discovery “requests,” 

the Ninth Circuit held that summary judgment 

in the Board's favor was improper. That Court 

thus ‘vacate[d] and remand[ed] for further 

proceedings, including, if applicable, resolution 

of any discovery request by either party relating 

to the [February 24, 2006] NCCHC report. 

Morgal, 2012 WL 2029719, at *1 (quoting Memo. (Doc. 122–1) at

2–3). There is nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s decision even

hinting, much less finding that the defendant did not

cooperate with any discovery. Nor did the Ninth Circuit find

that “discovery was not completed[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 156) at

2. 

With the foregoing clarifications and, as discussed

above, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff Morgal’s “Motion to

Reconsider Ruling on 6/5/2012[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 156) at 1. 

DATED this 20th day of June, 2012. 

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-00670-RCB Document 159 Filed 06/21/12 Page 5 of 5