Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01290/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01290-2/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

1

Defendants are Sergeant Mitchell and Correctional Officers Rahman, Mims,

Thornton, Garcia, Jones, and Backes (Doc. 10).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen Marie Hansen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1290-PHX-GMS (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Karen Marie Hansen brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against various Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) employees (Doc. 10).1

 On August

17, 2011, the Court entered an Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which was

based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court Order (Doc. 66, denying Mot. at Doc. 52).

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (Doc. 67).

Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s response to the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.

71).

The Court will deny the Motion to Strike as moot and deny the Motion for

Reconsideration. 

Case 2:09-cv-01290-GMS Document 73 Filed 10/03/11 Page 1 of 5
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

A more thorough factual background and review of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

arguments are set forth in the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 66 at 1-3).

- 2 -

I. Background2

Plaintiff’s claims arose during her confinement at the Arizona State Prison ComplexPerryville, in Goodyear, Arizona (Doc. 10). In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff set

forth two counts of retaliation and two counts of denial of access to the courts (id.). 

Defendants noticed Plaintiff’s deposition (Doc. 39), but she sought a protective order

to prevent the deposition on the basis that the deposition notice was untimely and Defendants

had failed to make initial disclosures (Doc. 40). The Court denied her motion and ordered

her to participate in the deposition and answer questions (Doc. 47). During Plaintiff’s

deposition on January 5, 2011, Plaintiff invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer

a question about a state civil case filed against her (Doc. 52 at 3). After unsuccessful

attempts to telephone the Magistrate Judge and the District Judge, defense counsel canceled

the deposition (id. at 3-4). 

Thereafter, Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) on the ground that Plaintiff failed to follow a Court Order directing

her to participate in the deposition (Doc. 52). The Court denied Defendants’ motion as

premature and extended the time for Defendants to depose Plaintiff (Doc. 66).

Defendants now move for reconsideration of that Order on the basis that the Court

made a manifest error of law in denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 67 at 3).

Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition (Doc. 69), which Defendants move to strike (Doc.

71). 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

A. Legal Standard

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,

Case 2:09-cv-01290-GMS Document 73 Filed 10/03/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

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). 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). 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).

B. Defendants’ Arguments

Defendants maintain that reconsideration is necessary to avoid a manifest error of law

(Doc. 67 at 3). Their argument rests on the assertion that Plaintiff was not candid with the

Court when she cited to only a portion of State v. Rosas-Hernandez, 42 P.3d 1177, 1182

(Ariz. App. 2002), in support of her claim that she was entitled to the privilege against selfincrimination in light of her pending Rule 32 Petition (Doc. 67 at 3-4). Defendants contend

that Plaintiff cited to a passage in Rosas-Hernandez that left the impression that the privilege

extended to any pending post-conviction relief proceeding (id. at 3). Defendants assert that

“[t]o the contrary, the Rosas-Hernandez court continued its decision (after the portion cited

by [Plaintiff]) by clarifying that the privilege against self-incrimination survives only during

the period when a defendant can or is pursuing his initial petition for post-conviction relief”

(id. at 3). Thus, Defendants claim that Plaintiff purposely misrepresented the scope of the

appellate court’s holding (id. at 1, 4). They acknowledge that Plaintiff is pursuing a second

Rule 32 Petition; however, they argue that this subsequent post-conviction proceeding is of

no significance because Plaintiff’s right against self-incrimination expired when her initial

petition for post-conviction relief was denied (id. at 4). 

 For this reason, Defendants request that the Court reconsider its decision not to

dismiss or, in the alternative, rule that Plaintiff may not refuse to answer any questions at her

deposition based on an asserted Fifth Amendment privilege (id. at 5). 

Case 2:09-cv-01290-GMS Document 73 Filed 10/03/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

C. Analysis

Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(2), no response to a motion for

reconsideration is permitted unless ordered by the Court. Here, the Court did not direct

Plaintiff to file a response, and no response is necessary for resolution of the motion.

Plaintiff’s response will not be considered, and Defendants’ Motion to Strike the response

will be denied as moot.

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will also be denied. As stated, a motion for

reconsideration cannot be used to raise arguments that could have been raised earlier. See

Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. The Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

specifically noted that in their reply, Defendants failed to address and, thus, failed to

controvert Plaintiff’s argument that the privilege against self-incrimination survives during

post-conviction review proceedings (Doc. 66 at 5, citing Doc. 63). In their Motion for

Reconsideration, Defendants now present argument that the privilege does not survive in

subsequent Rule 32 proceedings (Doc. 67 at 4-5). Raising this argument that could have

been raised earlier is not proper in a motion for reconsideration.

Even if the Court considers Defendants’ argument, it fails. Defendants’ claim—that

the holding in Rosas-Hernandez limits the right against self-incrimination to only the initial

Rule 32 proceeding—is incorrect (see Doc. 67 at 3). In Rosas-Hernandez, the state appellate

court held that a co-defendant, who was called to testify but who indicated that he intended

to file a Rule 32 Petition, could invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege “during the time

period in which a timely initial petition for post-conviction relief may be filed.” 42 P.3d at

1182. Defendants rely on that sentence to argue that the privilege survives during only the

initial petition proceeding (Doc. 67 at 4). But the succeeding sentences explain:

We need not, and do not, address whether the prospect of subsequent petitions

for post-conviction relief provides for Fifth Amendment protection in the face

of competing Sixth Amendment concerns. That is an issue for another day.

Id. Defendants fail to cite this portion of the decision. Nor do they cite any other case law

that later addressed and actually ruled on whether subsequent petitions for post-conviction

relief provide for Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, there is no showing that the

Case 2:09-cv-01290-GMS Document 73 Filed 10/03/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was based on a manifest error of law.

Finally, as mentioned in the prior Order, it would be improper for the Court to issue

a blanket prohibition on Plaintiff’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege before the

deposition. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444 (1972) (the privilege may be

invoked in the course of any criminal or civil proceeding). The Court cannot rule on whether

Plaintiff’s answer to a question might be incriminating except in the context of a propounded

question. See Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 462 (1981) (availability of the privilege turns

on nature of the statement and the exposure it invites); Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S.

479, 486-87 (1951); Roach v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 804 F.2d 1147, 1151 (10th Cir.

1986).

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants’ Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. 67) and Motion to Strike (Doc. 71).

(2) Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 71) is denied as moot.

(3) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 67) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01290-GMS Document 73 Filed 10/03/11 Page 5 of 5