Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00663/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00663-0/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 RP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Parker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-663-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court in this closed case are Plaintiff’s “Motion To Alter O[r]

Amend The Judgment” (Doc. #17) and “Motion For Court Order Legal Materials And 10

Hours A Week Of Access To Legal Reference Law Library” (Doc. #18). The Court will

deny both Motions.

I. Procedural Background

On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff Mark Parker, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff did not

pay the $350.00 civil action filing fee but filed a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (Doc. #3). 

By Order filed April 13, 2009, the Court denied the Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a new, completed Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement from the

Central Office of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC). On May 12, 2009,

Case 2:09-cv-00663-GMS--ECV Document 20 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #5), which included

a “Certified Statement Of Account” from the ADOC's Central Office.

By Order filed November 3, 2009 (Doc. #7), the Court granted Plaintiff’s new

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, assessed an initial partial filing fee, and

dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, with

leave to amend. Plaintiff was given 30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first

amended complaint.

On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed a “Motion For Exten[s]ion Of Time To File

Amended Complaint” (Doc. #9), in which he requested a 90-day extension of time to file his

first amended complaint.

In support of his Motion, Plaintiff stated that he did not receive the Court’s Order

(Doc. #7) until approximately November 16, 2009, and that since that date he had not had

access to the Law Library because of Library closures and “yard lockdowns.” Plaintiff

further stated that he was subject to a “seizure of legal books and is in the grievance process

for getting them back.” By Order filed December 14, 2009 (Doc. #10), the Court granted

Plaintiff’s Motion in part to the extent that Plaintiff was given 45 days from the filing date

of the Order to file a first amended complaint, and denied in part as to all other relief

requested. When Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within 45 days, the Clerk of

Court entered a judgment of dismissal (Doc. #13) of this action on February 16, 2010. 

On February 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “For Continuance of Time

to File Amended Complaint” (Doc. #14), which the Court construed as a Motion. In his

Motion, Plaintiff requested that the Court grant him a 60-day continuance of time to file an

amended complaint. By Order filed February 24, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion

and noted that in the Court’s December 14, 2009 Order (Doc. #10), the Court specifically

informed Plaintiff that “[n]o further extensions of time will be given.” Moreover, the

Court’s Order was more than generous in giving Plaintiff 45 extra days to file his amended

Case 2:09-cv-00663-GMS--ECV Document 20 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 4
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

The Court normally only grants a 30-day extension of time for inmates to file an amended

complaint. 

- 3 -

complaint.1 By the time that the Clerk of Court entered the judgment of dismissal in this

action, over 100 days had passed since the Court first granted Plaintiff leave to amend in its

November 3, 2009 Order (Doc. #7).

II. Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment

On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion To Alter O[r] Amend The Judgment”

(Doc. #17), in which he requests pursuant to “Rule 59(A)1 and 59(C)4” that the Court reopen

this case so that he can file an amended complaint. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff states

that “prison officials have been blocking the preparation and filing of [his] amended

complaint by moving Plaintiff from one prison to another - four times, taking away legal

research material, confiscat[ing] legal books, [and] den[ying] access to [a] law reference

library” and that the “paralegal refused assistance[] and denied legal material.” Plaintiff’s

allegations in his Motion are essentially the same as those he previously presented to that

Court in his pleading entitled “For Continuance of Time to File Amended Complaint”

(Doc. #14). 

Because Plaintiff’s Motion calls into question the correctness of the underlying

judgment, the Court will treat the Motion as being brought under Rule 59(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend judgment.

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 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 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Here, after having considered the foregoing standards, and liberally reviewing the

record in this case and Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court declines to reverse itself and set aside

the Judgment in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.

III. Motion for Court Order

On March 15, 2010, Plaintiff also filed a “Motion For Court Order Legal Materials

Case 2:09-cv-00663-GMS--ECV Document 20 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 4
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 -

And 10 Hours A Week Of Access To Legal Reference Law Library” (Doc. #18), which the

Court will deny as moot in light of the denial of Plaintiff’s “Motion To Alter O[r] Amend

The Judgment” (Doc. #17).

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion To Alter O[r] Amend The Judgment” (Doc. #17), which

the Court construes as being brought under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s “Motion For Court Order Legal Materials And 10 Hours A Week

Of Access To Legal Reference Law Library” (Doc. #18) is denied as moot.

(3) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 11th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00663-GMS--ECV Document 20 Filed 05/12/10 Page 4 of 4