Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01536/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-01536-2/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 BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Milton Lee Tucker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Ralph Kluff, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-1536-PHX-RCB (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Milton Tucker filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging this Court’s

October 2006 Order granting Defendants Ralph Kluff and Crouch’s Motion to Dismiss and

ordering Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants Ken Willy and Jones should not be

dismissed due to his failure to serve them (Doc. #64). Plaintiff argued that the dismissal

order demonstrated that this Court was biased, and requests the case be assigned to a

different judge (Id.). Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare

circumstances. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration is appropriate when: “(1) There are material differences in

fact or law from that presented to the Court and, at the time of the Court’s decision, the party

moving for reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal differences through

reasonable diligence; (2) There are new material facts that happened after the Court’s

decision; (3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or enacted after the Court’s

decision; or (4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s decision.” Motorola, Inc.

v. J.B. Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Case 2:03-cv-01536-RCB-JRI Document 66 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

First, this case will not be reassigned. Second, Plaintiff is not entitled to

reconsideration. The Court correctly determined that Count I was time-barred, considering

all relevant law regarding the limitations period. The Court also correctly determined that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Count II. 

Third, Plaintiff has failed to show cause why Willy and Jones have not been served.

Plaintiff was provided sufficient assistance from the Arizona Department of Corrections and

the Court in his attempt to serve Willy and Jones. The ultimate responsibility to serve a

defendant lies with the plaintiff and Plaintiff exhibits no ability to serve either Willy or Jones

even though this case has been pending for more than three years. The Court will not grant

Plaintiff another extension. See Efaw v. Williams, 04-16920, manuscript op. at 620-22 (9th

Cir. Jan. 16, 2007) (providing that the district court abused in extending Plaintiff’s time to

serve the defendant until more than seven years after the action had been filed).

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied, Defendants Willy and

Jones will be dismissed from this action, and Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #64) is denied. 

(2) Defendants Willy and Jones are dismissed from this action.

(3) Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

Dated this 27th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:03-cv-01536-RCB-JRI Document 66 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2