Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01359/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01359-1/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 

MDR 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gregory Nides Valencia, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-1359-PHX-DGC (JZB) 

ORDER 

On June 18, 2014, Plaintiff Gregory Nides Valencia, Jr., who is confined in the 

Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights 

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and invoked the Court’s supplemental 

jurisdiction over his state law claims. He also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. On July 24, 2014, he filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis. On August 4, 2014, he filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a 

Memorandum and a Declaration in support of the Motion. 

In a September 12, 2014 Order, the Court granted the second Application to 

Proceed, ordered Defendant Martin to answer the Eighth Amendment claim regarding 

Defendant Martin’s denial of a no-nitrate diet for Plaintiff, dismissed without prejudice 

the remaining claims and Defendants, and denied without prejudice the Motion for a 

Preliminary Injunction. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01359-DGC-JZB Document 22 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction (Doc. 14) and a Memorandum and Declaration in support of the Motion. On 

October 2, 2014, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 18). 

I. Motion for Reconsideration

 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its 

dismissal of Defendants Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) Director Charles L. 

Ryan; Wexford Health Services, Inc. (Wexford); Corizon Health Services, Inc. (Corizon); 

Trinity Food Services, Inc. (Trinity); and ADOC/Trinity Dietician April Dishman. The 

Court dismissed these Defendants because Plaintiff’s allegations against them in the 

Complaint were nothing more than vague and conclusory allegations against a group of 

Defendants, without any actual specificity as to what each particular Defendant did or 

failed to do, and because Plaintiff did not identify when he complained to each 

Defendant, the substance of his complaint, what each Defendant did or failed to do, and 

how that particular Defendant’s conduct constituted deliberate indifference to a serious 

medical need. 

 In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff refers the Court to an ADOC 

Department Order and makes factual assertions against Defendants Wexford, Corizon, 

Trinity, Ryan, and Dishman. It appears Plaintiff is attempting to bolster the deficient 

allegations in his 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.” School 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01359-DGC-JZB Document 22 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

(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. 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 the Complaint, the September 12, 2104 Order, and the 

Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s new allegations do not alter the Court’s 

conclusion that Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Wexford, Corizon, Trinity, 

Ryan, and Dishman in the Complaint were deficient. The Court finds no basis to 

reconsider its decision. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration.1

II. Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction

 Whether to grant or deny a motion for a preliminary injunction is within the 

Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 

1979). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show “that he is likely 

to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 

the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

(2008). The moving party has the burden of proof on each element of the test. 

Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 

2000). 

 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and will not be 

granted absent a clear showing of likely success in the underlying claim and possible 

 

1

 If Plaintiff wants to amend his Complaint to present additional allegations, he must comply with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 15.1 of the 

Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:14-cv-01359-DGC-JZB Document 22 Filed 11/25/14 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

irreparable injury. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam). 

An injunction or temporary restraining order is appropriate to grant intermediate relief of 

the same character as which may be granted finally, and relief is not proper when 

requested on matters lying wholly outside the issues in suit. See DeBeers Consol. Mines 

v. United States., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 

(11th Cir.), amended, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997). To obtain injunctive relief, the 

party “must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s 

motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 

471 (8th Cir. 1994). 

 Plaintiff does not specifically identify in his second Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction what specific injunctive relief he desires. However, in his Declaration in 

Support, Plaintiff states that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction “requiring the 

Defendant to arrange for an examination/test for sensitivity to nitrates and a plan of 

treatment by a qualified specialist, and . . . requiring Defendant Martin to carry out that 

plan of treatment.” 

 In the September 12, 2014 Order, the Court only required Defendant Martin to 

answer Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant 

Martin regarding Defendant Martin’s denial of Plaintiff’s no-nitrate diet that had been 

prescribed by a doctor. The injunctive relief Plaintiff requests in his Declaration in 

Support relates to matters outside the very limited issue remaining in this lawsuit. Thus, 

the Court, in its discretion, will deny Plaintiff’s second Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new motion for a preliminary injunction seeking 

relief only against Defendant Martin regarding the no-nitrate diet. 

III. Warnings

A. Release

 Plaintiff must pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee within 120 days of his 

release. Also, within 30 days of his release, he must either (1) notify the Court that he 

Case 2:14-cv-01359-DGC-JZB Document 22 Filed 11/25/14 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in writing, why he cannot. Failure to 

comply may result in dismissal of this action. 

B. 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. 

C. Copies

 Because Plaintiff is currently confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections 

unit subject to General Order 14-17, Plaintiff is not required to serve Defendants with a 

copy of every document he files or to submit an additional copy of every filing for use by 

the Court, as would ordinarily be required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and 

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.4. If Plaintiff is transferred to a unit other than one 

subject to General Order 14-17, he will be notified of the requirements for service and 

copies for the Court that are required for inmates whose cases are not subject to General 

Order 14-17. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The reference to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle is withdrawn only with 

respect to Plaintiff’s second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 14) and his Motion 

for Reconsideration (Doc. 18). 

 (2) Plaintiff’s second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 14) is denied 

without prejudice. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 2:14-cv-01359-DGC-JZB Document 22 Filed 11/25/14 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied. 

 (4) All other matters must remain with Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle for 

disposition as appropriate. 

 Dated this 25th day of November, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01359-DGC-JZB Document 22 Filed 11/25/14 Page 6 of 6