Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01082/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01082-0/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lawrence Dawson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1082-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

On May 29, 2007, Plaintiff Lawrence Dawson, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June

22, 2007, the Court dismissed the Complaint under the “3 strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g) because at least three prior actions filed by Plaintiff in federal courts have been

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or as failing to state a claim (Doc. #5.) This action was

dismissed and judgment was entered on June 22, 2007 (Doc. #6).

On July 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #7). The Court

will deny the Motion.

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is

appropriate if 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

Case 2:07-cv-01082-SMM--LOA Document 9 Filed 08/21/07 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 -

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

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).

Plaintiff does not offer new evidence nor does he establish that an intervening change

in controlling law is applicable to this case. The Court has reviewed its order and finds no

error in its dismissal of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Therefore, the Court will deny

the Motion for Reconsideration.

Accordingly

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s July 23, 2007 Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. #7). 

DATED this 21st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01082-SMM--LOA Document 9 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2