Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

Reginald Haywood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jeffrey A. Bedatsky, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2179-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal Order. Doc. #58. The Court will

construe this filing as a motion to reconsider its order of April 12, 2006 granting NPMHU’s

motion for summary judgment. Doc. #47. Under the Court’s local rules, NPMHU is not

permitted to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion unless ordered by the Court. See

LRCiv.7.2(g). NPMHU nonetheless filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. #59.

Because the Court’s local rules do not permit briefing on a motion for reconsideration

without Court order, the Court will rule on the motion without further briefing.

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its order granting summary

judgment. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). Motions for

reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new

arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Court to

rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz. 1998). 

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 62 Filed 06/08/06 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 -

Plaintiff asserts a number of arguments not contained in his original summary

judgment briefing. As noted above, a motion for reconsideration is not the place to assert

new arguments. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the Court will address

Plaintiff’s one relevant argument.

Plaintiff suggests that the Court erred in applying a 6-month statute of limitations to

his claim against NPMHU. Relying on Farber v. City of Patterson, 440 F.3d 131 (3rd Cir.

2006), Plaintiff argues that the Court should have applied a six-year limitations period. The

Farber case, however, was applying the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act. It

does not apply to the claim in this case. 

Plaintiff asserts a variety of additional arguments in his motion. Some concern

grievances that are not a part of this case. The Court will not address these issues.

Plaintiff also suggests in his motion that he desires to amend his complaint. The Court

held a Rule 16 case management conference with Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants on

May 31, 2006, and established a deadline for filing motions to amend. The case management

order reflecting that deadline will be issued shortly. If Plaintiff desires to amend his

complaint, he should file a proper motion to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure within the time permitted under the case management order.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal Order (Doc. #58) is

denied.

DATED this 7th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 62 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2