Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01187/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01187-1/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 SH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Joseph Benge,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wexford Health, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-01187-PHX-MTL (CDB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Robert Joseph Benge, who was previously confined in the Arizona State 

Prison Complex-Florence, brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41).

I. Background

Upon screening Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment 

medical care claim against Defendants Wexford and Corizon in Counts One and Three and 

ordered them to answer. (Doc. 11.)

In an Order issued August 29, 2019, the Court noted that Plaintiff was released from 

prison on August 9, 2019 and directed Plaintiff to either pay the balance of the $350 filing 

fee or file a non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 

or Costs. (Doc. 16.) 

On October 9, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting an Initial 

Disclosure deadline of November 7, 2019, a deposition deadline of January 6, 2020, and a 

Case 2:19-cv-01187-MTL-CDB Document 45 Filed 03/16/20 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

discovery deadline of February 5, 2020. (Doc. 29.)

On October 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles issued a Report and 

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this action be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s 

failure to pay the filing fee or file the non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 32.) On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a nonprisoner Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 

33.) As such, on November 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bibles withdrew the October 18, 

2019 R&R and granted Plaintiff’s non-prisoner Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 34.)

On December 18, 2019, Defendant Wexford filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure 

to Prosecute. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff did not file a Response, although he was informed of his 

right and obligation to do so, and he was that failure to respond may be construed as consent 

to the Motion and could result in dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Local 

Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i). (Doc. 36.) In light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond, 

Defendant Wexford subsequently moved for summary disposition of its Motion to Dismiss. 

(Doc. 37.)

In a February 7, 2020 Order, the Court granted Defendant Wexford’s Motion to 

Dismiss and terminated the action due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the case or respond 

to the Court’s Order. (Doc. 38.) Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider the February 

7, 2020 Order dismissing the action. (Doc. 41.)

II. Governing Standard

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.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Mere disagreement with a 

previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels 

Case 2:19-cv-01187-MTL-CDB Document 45 Filed 03/16/20 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

Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 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. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

III. Analysis

In his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive a copy of Defendant

Wexford’s Motion to Dismiss until January 7, 2020 and that he did not file a response to 

the Motion because on January 27, 2020, Wexford defense counsel’s secretary advised him 

that defense counsel intended to withdraw the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 41 at 1.) Plaintiff 

blames his failure to respond defense counsel and argues that “Wexford failed to prosecute 

and/or communicate with . . . Plaintiff.” (Id.) 

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments. Plaintiff admits that he 

received a copy of Defendant Wexford’s Motion to Dismiss on January 7, 2020. (Id.) At 

that point, Plaintiff still had until January 17, 2020 to file a timely response, but he failed 

to do so. Plaintiff does not explain why he failed to file a response as soon as he became 

aware of the Motion to Dismiss, and he does not explain why he did not seek an extension 

of the response deadline. By the time Plaintiff allegedly spoke with defense counsel’s 

secretary on January 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s time to respond to the Motion to Dismiss had 

already passed—without Plaintiff seeking an extension of the deadline—so Plaintiff’s

reliance on the secretary’s assertions is unfounded. Plaintiff’s attempts to blame defense 

counsel and Defendant Wexford for his failure to comply with the Court’s Order is not 

well-taken. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this action, to diligently pursue his 

claims, and to comply with the Court’s Orders and deadlines. After considering Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that there is 

newly discovered evidence, a change in the law, or that the Court’s decision was manifestly 

unjust. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied.

Case 2:19-cv-01187-MTL-CDB Document 45 Filed 03/16/20 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

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to the Motion for 

Reconsideration (Doc. 41).

(2) The Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 41) is denied.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2020.

3

Case 2:19-cv-01187-MTL-CDB Document 45 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 4