Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

Robert A. Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Glendale Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 11-02260-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Robert A. Garcia’s Response (Doc. 142) to 

Defendant’s previous Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 119), styled as a “Motion for Rehearing.”1

On March 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 138) granting Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss and dismissing Plaintiff’s case without prejudice. Judgment was entered that 

same day. (Doc. 139). Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s March 24, 2014 

“Motion for Rehearing” as a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s previous order under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and/or 60(b).2

 Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: (1) the movant 

presents newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial 

decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law has 

occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

 1

 The Court notes that, on March 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the 

Joint Pretrial Final Proposed Order (Doc. 141). Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 

case without prejudice ten days prior (Doc. 138), Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is moot. 

2

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) apply to reconsideration of “final judgments and 

appealable interlocutory orders.” Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrs., 869 F.2d 461, 466–67 

(9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 143 Filed 03/25/14 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 -

(9th Cir. 1993). A party should not file a motion to reconsider 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). “No motion for 

reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support 

of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. 

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The Court ordinarily will 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). Additionally, any motion to reconsider pursuant 

to Rule 59(e) must “be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e). 

 Here, Plaintiff timely filed his Motion for Reconsideration on March 24, 2014. 

Plaintiff does not contend that there is newly discovered previously unavailable evidence 

or that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, he disagrees with 

several of the Court’s legal conclusions. 

 The arguments in the Motion to Reconsider are nothing more than a re-argument of 

the facts previously presented to the Court in the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

(Compare Doc. 142, with Doc. 133). Indeed, Plaintiff again restates his position that he is 

not unwilling to accept mail, but rather only unwilling to sign for its receipt or to send 

outgoing mail. (Doc. 142 at 1–2). Nonetheless, Plaintiff again admits (id.) that the 

practical implication of his refusal to follow the Arizona Department of Corrections 

(“ADC”) mail protocol is that the ADC refuses to release mail to Plaintiff or send 

Plaintiff’s outgoing mail without Plaintiff’s signature acknowledging the action. As the 

Court explained in its previous Order, Plaintiff’s repeated refusals to accept mail and 

prosecute his case, despite the Court’s repeated warnings, warrant dismissal without 

prejudice. (Doc. 138 at 4). 

 Plaintiff must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision; the Court 

should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless there is need to correct a clear error 

of law or prevent manifest injustice. See Motorola, Inc, 215 F.R.D. at 586. Such is not the 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 143 Filed 03/25/14 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 -

case here. Plaintiff has failed to present the Court with cause to reconsider its March 10, 

2014 Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. For the 

reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 142) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Joint Pretrial 

Final Proposed Order (Doc. 141) is DENIED as moot. 

 Dated this 25th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 143 Filed 03/25/14 Page 3 of 3