Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02594/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02594-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Mothershed, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jerome K. Elwell; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2594-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 50). 

I. INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff, George Mothershed, filed this action pro se on November 18, 2004. On

November 27, 2004, he filed a motion for injunctive relief asking this Court to stay pending

state court litigation and review several interlocutory orders entered by various state court

judges. Subsequently, the Defendants filed various motions to dismiss and a request for

sanctions. 

The Court denied the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief at a hearing on December

20, 2004. On June 7, 2005, the Court issued an Order: (1) clarifying the basis for its denial

of the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief; (2) granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss;

(3) granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' request for sanctions; (4) terminating

the case; and (5) ordering that the Plaintiff "shall not file in federal court any new action or

any motion of any kind in an existing or previously existing action that in any way relates

Case 2:04-cv-02594-JAT Document 52 Filed 03/10/06 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 -

to or arises from Plaintiff's father's trust and/or its administration unless Plaintiff obtains

counsel who will file such pleadings on his behalf." 

On June 17, 2005, the Plaintiff filed, without counsel, a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter

or Amend Judgment Order and requested oral argument. The Plaintiff's motion set forth

numerous arguments, many of which were already raised in the Plaintiff's request for

preliminary injunction and/or his opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss. On June

22, 2005, the Defendants filed a Motion to Strike, or in the alternative, Motion for Direction.

On January 13, 2006, the Court issued an Order: (1) holding that the Plaintiff failed

to set forth any grounds to cause the Court to reconsider, alter, or amend its June 7, 2005,

Order; (2) denying the Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion to Alter Judgment; and (3) denying the

Defendants' Motion to Strike and Alternative Motion for Direction as moot.

On January 23, 2006, the Plaintiff, again appearing pro se, filed a Motion to

Reconsider. The Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider and "voluntarily vacate" both the

June 7, 2005, Order terminating this case, and the January 13, 2006, Order declining to

reconsider and/or set aside the Court's June 7, 2005, Order. 

The Court declines to reconsider its January 13, 2006, Order denying reconsideration.

This case has been terminated. If the Plaintiff disagrees with this Court's rulings his remedy

is through the normal appellate process. Database Am., Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Pub’g

Corp., 825 F.Supp. 1216, 1220 (D. N.J. 1993); Refrigeration Sales Co. v Mitchell Jackson,

Inc., 605 F.Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983).

On June 7, 2005, the Court explicitly ordered the Plaintiff not to file any further

motions in this action without first obtaining counsel to assist him and file pleadings on his

behalf. Since that date, the Plaintiff has filed two motions without counsel. Any further

motions to reconsider filed in this matter will be stricken. The Plaintiff is advised that

continued filing of frivolous motions in this action may result in this Court issuing an Order

to Show cause why the Plaintiff should not be sanctioned. 

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02594-JAT Document 52 Filed 03/10/06 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (doc. 50).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of the Court shall strike any further motions

to reconsider, vacate, or set aside filed by the Plaintiff in this matter. 

DATED this 10th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02594-JAT Document 52 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 3