Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00630/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00630-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerlando Curreri, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Paul Babeu, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-630-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s March

17, 2011 Order (Doc. 71) adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and

denying him leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 78.) 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 County,

Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 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.” Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1).

Plaintiff has not asserted any of the above acceptable bases for reconsidering an order.

Plaintiff instead claims that he never received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. But Plaintiff does not allege that the Court did not send him a copy of the

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 93 Filed 09/19/11 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 -

R&R, and Plaintiff obviously received a copy of this Court’s March 17, 2011 Order and has

received copies of documents in this case.

Because Plaintiff has not stated a basis for reconsidering this Court’s earlier Order and

has not alleged that the Court failed to send him a copy of the R&R, the Court will deny the

Motion for Reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 78). 

DATED this 19th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00630-JAT Document 93 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2