Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04589/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04589-0/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

Tony Deng,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-04589-PHX-JAT (JFM)

ORDER

On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff Tony Deng, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an August 26, 2019 Order, the Court granted 

the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed to 

state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the 

deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court 

dismissed in a December 12, 2019 Order. Plaintiff then filed a January 3, 2020, Second 

Amended Complaint and a January 30, 2020, Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In a 

February 24, 2020 Order, the Court ordered Defendants Ortiz and Centurion LLC to answer 

Count Three of the Second Amended Complaint, dismissed the remaining claims and 

Defendants without prejudice, and denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

. . . .

Case 2:19-cv-04589-JAT-JFM Document 22 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 13, 2020 Motion for Leave to File 

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17) and lodged March 26, 2020 Motion for 

Reconsideration (Doc. 18). The Court will granted the Motion for Leave to File and deny 

the 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). 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 (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).

Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider the dismissal of Counts One, Two, and Four 

of the Second Amended Complaint and the denial of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 

Plaintiff essentially reasserts the claims raised in the Second Amended Complaint and 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court has reviewed the Second Amended 

Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, February 24, 2020 screening Order, and 

Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decisions. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Case 2:19-cv-04589-JAT-JFM Document 22 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn only with respect to the 

Motion for Leave to File and Motion for Reconsideration. All other matters in this action 

remain with the Magistrate Judge for disposition as appropriate.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 17) is granted; the Clerk of Court 

must file the Motion for Reconsideration.

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

Dated this 8th day of April, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-04589-JAT-JFM Document 22 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 3