Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04809/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04809-1/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 NA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Lee Bell,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

County of Maricopa, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-04809-PHX-MTL (JFM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s May 26, 2020 Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 19). The Motion will be denied. 

I. Background

On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff William Lee Bell, who is confined in the Arizona State 

Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an August 20, 2019 Order, the Court 

denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to either pay the 

$400.00 filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. 

On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing and administrative fees. 

In a December 23, 2019 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had 

failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that 

cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

After requesting and receiving a 60-day extension of time, Plaintiff filed his First 

Case 2:19-cv-04809-MTL--JFM Document 21 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 4
- 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

Amended Complaint on February 26, 2020. In an April 2, 2020 Order, the Court dismissed 

the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Court gave 

Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified 

in the Order. 

On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time and a Motion to 

Appoint Counsel. In an April 23, 2020 Order, the Court denied the Motion to Appoint 

Counsel and granted the Motion for Extension of Time to the extent it gave Plaintiff 45 

days to file his second amended complaint. On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 

Stay, which the Court construed as a motion for extension of time and granted Plaintiff 60 

days to file a second amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s April 2, 2020 

Order. 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider his April 16, 2020 Motion to 

Appoint Counsel and April 23, 2020 Notice of Errata and to appoint an attorney to assist 

him in filing a second amended complaint. Motions for reconsideration should be granted 

only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. 

Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 

was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such 

motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court 

had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 

1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. 

Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor 

may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in 

opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 

Case 2:19-cv-04809-MTL--JFM Document 21 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 4
- 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

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis 

for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 

1988).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Plaintiff’s Notice of 

Errata, the April 23 and May 17, 2020 Orders, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision and will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

III. Warnings 

A. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 

action.

B. Possible “Strike”

Because the First Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, if 

Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in 

the April 2, 2020 Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” 

provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring 

a civil action or appeal a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the 

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the 

grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

C. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the April 2, 2020 Order, 

May 27, 2020 Order, and this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this 

action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:19-cv-04809-MTL--JFM Document 21 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the 

Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied. 

(2) All previous filing deadlines remain in place. 

Dated this 12th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-04809-MTL--JFM Document 21 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 4