Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01729/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01729-0/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

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ralph John Chapa, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jan Brewer, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1729-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ralph John Chapa, who is confined in Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail,

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On October 5, 2011, the Court dismissed the Complaint and

this action under the three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court determined

that Plaintiff’s claims that his mental illness was exacerbated by lack of treatment in the

Maricopa County Jail and by the Arizona State Hospital’s delay in accepting Plaintiff for

treatment did not demonstrate that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical

injury.

On October 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 9). On

October 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 13). Plaintiff argues that he has

experienced increased thoughts of suicide in the Maricopa County Jail and is therefore in

imminent danger of suffering serious injury.

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

Case 2:11-cv-01729-DGC--DKD Document 14 Filed 11/23/11 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 -

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)).

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the October 5th Order of dismissal, and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision.

See Pauline v. Mishner, 2009 WL 1505672, *2 (D. Hawaii 2009) (Plaintiff’s allegation that

he would harm himself or others if not provided with specific mental health treatment at a

specific facility was not sufficient to find that Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious

physical injury); Taylor v. Walker, 2007 WL 4365718, *2 (S.D. Ill. 2007) (a prisoner cannot

create the imminent danger so as to escape the three strikes provision of the PLRA). The

Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s October 14, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 9) is denied. The Clerk of Court must forward a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01729-DGC--DKD Document 14 Filed 11/23/11 Page 2 of 2