Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03105/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03105-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

TERMPSREF

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ramona Sullins, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3105-PHX-SMM (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ramona Sullins, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Goodyear, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By

Order filed February 5, 2007, the Court dismissed the Complaint and gave Plaintiff 30 days

to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint; by Order dated

March 14, 2007, the Court ordered Defendant Deverna to answer Count I of the First

Amended Complaint and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice.

(Doc. #6.)

Plaintiff has filed a document stating that the rights raised in her Complaint “are not

the constitutional rights shown on [her] return of summons.” (Doc. #12.) The Court will

construe this as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 14, 2007 Order and deny

it.

Case 2:06-cv-03105-SMM-DKD Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

I. Background

In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff named the following Defendants: (1) Dora

Schriro, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC); (2) Chris Lang, CO IV,

Head of Counselors at Santa Cruz-Perryville; and (3) Chad Deverna, CO III, Counselor at

Santa Cruz-Perryville. The First Amended Complaint contains three counts arising from

Plaintiff’s claim that she was held after her release date. In Count I, Plaintiff alleged that her

Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because she was held

538 days past her release date. In Count II, Plaintiff alleged that the conduct violated her

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In Count III, she alleged that working for

ADOC for a year and seven months violated her Thirteenth Amendment rights.

As the Court stated in its March 14, 2007 Order, the Court is required to screen

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or

an employee of a governmental entity and to dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a

plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). The Court dismissed the claims in

Counts II and III as duplicative of the claims in Count I. Moreover, Plaintiff was advised that

claims challenging the detention past Plaintiff’s release date would be appropriately brought

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, not the Thirteenth Amendment. Finally, the

Court dismissed Defendants Schriro and Lang because the First Amended Complaint alleged

no conduct linking either Defendant with the harm alleged by Plaintiff. See Rizzo v. Goode,

423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 

II. 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,

Case 2:06-cv-03105-SMM-DKD Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

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 Bohannon

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

Plaintiff has made no arguments for reconsideration, and the Court finds no basis to

alter or amend the Order dismissing the Counts II and III and Defendants Schriro and Lang.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #12) is denied.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03105-SMM-DKD Document 15 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3