Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00507/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00507-0/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maurice Patterson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joe Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-507-PHX-JAT (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court in this closed case are Plaintiff’s “Motion for relief from

judgment or order [R]ule 60 Fed R Civ P and notice of change of address” (Doc. 10) and a

Letter (Doc. 13), which the Clerk of Court has docketed as a Motion for status. The Court

will deny the Motion for relief from judgment and grant the Motion for status.

I. Procedural Background

On March 13, 2008, Plaintiff Maurice Patterson, who is confined in the Arizona State

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

(Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3). On June 11, 2008,

Plaintiff filed a “Motion to [S]upplement Complaint” (Doc. 4).

By Order filed June 12, 2008 (Doc. 5), the Court granted the Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was given

30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first amended complaint in compliance with

the Order. By Order filed June 19, 2008 (Doc. 7), the Court denied Plaintiff’s “Motion to

[S]upplement Complaint” (Doc. 4) as moot. 

Case 2:08-cv-00507-JAT--DKD Document 15 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

When Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint, the Clerk of Court entered a

Judgment of dismissal of this action on August 1, 2008 (Doc. 8). 

II. Motion for relief from judgment or order

On July 6, 2010, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for relief from judgment or order [R]ule

60 Fed R Civ P and notice of change of address” (Doc. 10), in which he asks the Court for

relief from its Judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff also asks for the Court to allow him to “amend and correct the original [C]omplaint

to state a claim,” to send him an entire copy of the original Complaint and the “first order to

dismiss, with leave to amend,” and to accept his notice of change of address. 

Under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reconsideration is

appropriate “only upon a showing of . . . ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify

relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). Rule 60(b)(6) only

applies in “extraordinary circumstances” and “has been used sparingly as an equitable

remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservation Co., 984

F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). “Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare

circumstances.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995).

 “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or

to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d

Cir. 1985). 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)).

In his Motion, Plaintiff alleges that he was never given an opportunity to amend his

original Complaint because he “was transferred, back and forth, from lower buckeye jail, to

durango jail, and then back to lower buckeye jail and never received any order allowing

[him] to resubmit a[n] amended complaint to correct [his] original complaint (leave to

amend).” However, the Court notes that the docket in this case reflects that copies of both

the Court’s June 12, 2008 Order (Doc. 5) dismissing the Complaint (Doc. 1) with leave to

Case 2:08-cv-00507-JAT--DKD Document 15 Filed 08/24/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

amend, and the Court’s June 19, 2008 Order (Doc. 7) denying Plaintiff’s “Motion to

[S]upplement Complaint” (Doc. 4) as moot, were mailed to Plaintiff at his last known address

and that neither copy was returned to the Court as undeliverable.

While the copy of the Judgment of dismissal (Doc. 8) that was mailed to Plaintiff was

returned to the Clerk of Court as undeliverable, the docket reflects that the copy of the

Judgment was remailed to Plaintiff at an address determined in part from the notation on the

returned mail. That the copy was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. Moreover, the

Court notes that, despite having the duty to prosecute this case, Plaintiff failed to inquire into

the status of this action until almost two years after Judgment was entered. 

For the above reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to show

extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief. Accordingly, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s Motion. 

III. Motion for status

Plaintiff’s Letter (Doc. 13), which the Clerk of Court has docketed as a Motion for

status, will be granted to the extent that this Order informs Plaintiff of the status of his

“Motion for relief from judgment or order [R]ule 60 Fed R Civ P and notice of change of

address” (Doc. 10). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion for relief from judgment or order [R]ule 60 Fed R Civ P

and notice of change of address” (Doc. 10) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s Letter (Doc. 13), which the Clerk of Court has docketed as a Motion

for status, is granted to the extent that this Order informs Plaintiff of the status of his

“Motion for relief from judgment or order [R]ule 60 Fed R Civ P and notice of change of

address” (Doc. 10).

//

//

//

Case 2:08-cv-00507-JAT--DKD Document 15 Filed 08/24/10 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

(3) This case must remain closed. 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00507-JAT--DKD Document 15 Filed 08/24/10 Page 4 of 4