Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01674/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01674-0/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 LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry L. Fisher, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1674-PHX-NVW (HCE)

ORDER

This civil rights action, filed by a former county jail inmate, was dismissed without

prejudice for noncompliance with a Court order. Presently pending is Plaintiff’s letter

motion to reinstate the action (Dkt. #7). The Court will deny the motion.

A. Procedural Background.

Not long after filing his action, Plaintiff submitted a change of address. See Dkt. #4.

He stated “I used to be at [the Durango Jail],” and “Now I am at (new address) [in Florida].”

Id. In light of his release from jail, the Court required him to show cause why he could not

pay the filing fee within thirty days. See Dkt. #5. Plaintiff failed to respond, and his action

was dismissed. See Dkt. #6. 

Not long thereafter, the Court received the present motion from Plaintiff, in the form

of a letter. Plaintiff asserts that he gave a Florida address because he anticipated that he

would not receive his mail due to several moves within the county jail system. He requests

that his action be reinstated. Plaintiff, however, fails to explain why he did not respond

within the thirty-day time period provided in the show cause order.

Case 2:05-cv-01674-NVW--HCE Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 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 -

B. Legal Standards.

Because Plaintiff submitted his motion after entry of judgment, the Court must treat

it either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North Am.

Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A Rule 59 motion must be filed within

ten days of entry of judgment. FED.R.CIV. P. 59(e). Plaintiff’s motion was filed within the

ten-day period and will therefore be considered under Rule 59(e).

“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’”

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc, per curiam) (emphasis

in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)),

cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1082 (2000). This type of motion seeks “a substantive change of mind

by the court.” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Miller v.

Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

C. Analysis.

Plaintiff’s motion to reopen does not meet the standard for Rule 59(e). He failed to

show cause within the thirty-day period. His present explanation is untimely, without any

reason offered for its untimeliness. The record also now reflects conflicting assertions by

Plaintiff: his address change stated “Now I am at (new address) [in Florida],” but his present

motion asserts that he never was released from custody. Accordingly, there is no basis under

Rule 59(e) to grant his request.

Because Plaintiff’s action was dismissed without prejudice, there is nothing to prevent

him from filing a new action. Previously, Plaintiff filed five actions regarding jail conditions.

Two actions were dismissed as duplicative. See Fisher v. Arpaio, No CV 05-1696-PHXNVW (HCE) (D. Ariz.), Fisher v. Peterson, No. CV 05-1765-PHX-NVW (HCE) (D. Ariz.).

For the remaining three actions, Plaintiff was advised that he could bring all his claims in one

Case 2:05-cv-01674-NVW--HCE Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 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 -

action and avoid paying the civil action filing fee in each of the three cases. See Fisher v.

Arpaio, No. CV 05-1636-PHX-NVW (HCE) (D. Ariz.) (Dkt. #3), Fisher v. Peterson, No. CV

05-1642-PHX-NVW (HCE) (Dkt. #3), Fisher v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-1674-PHX-NVW

(HCE) (Dkt. #3). Plaintiff is again advised that should he file a new action, he should bring

all his claims in one action. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Dkt. #7),

construed as a motion filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

is denied.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01674-NVW--HCE Document 9 Filed 10/31/05 Page 3 of 3