Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00701/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00701-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

John Steven Simon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-701-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff John Steven Simon’s Motions for

Reconsideration, (Dkt.#69,70), and Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis,

(Dkt.#72). After reviewing the pleadings and determining oral argument unnecessary, the

Court issues the following Order.

In deciding whether to grant a motion for reconsideration, which is generally brought

under Rule 59(e), a district court has broad discretion. Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F. Supp.

2d 1074, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (internal citations omitted). While Rule 59(e) allows a

district court to reconsider and amend its previous orders for clear error or a fundamental

miscarriage of justice, the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources behoove

the courts to use the rule sparingly and only as an extraordinary remedy. Carroll v. Nakatani,

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Moreover, a motion to reconsider may

Case 2:09-cv-00701-JAT Document 78 Filed 03/19/10 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 -

not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Id. 

There is nothing in Plaintiff Simon’s Motion that would warrant the Court to

reconsider and amend its previous Order, which dismissed Simon’s Complaint in its entirety

with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court notes that the most appropriate manner

in which to challenge a final judgment issued by a district court is through the appellate

process, rather than a Rule 59 motion. As such, Simon’s Motion for Reconsideration will

be denied.

In addition, although Simon has filed a motion for the district court to grant him leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the Court notes that it has already granted Simon’s IFP

request, which is available on the Court’s docket at document number five. As such,

Simon’s Motion for Leave is moot, since his IFP status remains in place through the

appellate process.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff John Steven Simon’s Motion for

Reconsideration, (Dkt.#69,70).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff John Steven Simon’s

Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt.#72)

DATED this 18th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00701-JAT Document 78 Filed 03/19/10 Page 2 of 2