Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02260-6/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert A. Garcia, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Glendale Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 11-02260-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Robert A. Garcia’s Motion for Reassignment 

of his Case (Doc. 144) under LRCiv 42.1.1

 Also pending are Plaintiff’s three successive 

Motions for Reconsideration styled as a “Motion for Reconsideration” (Doc. 145), 

“Motion for New Trial” (Doc. 146), and “Motion of Reconsideration / Objection to 

Judgment” (Doc. 149). The Court construes these three motions as Motions to Reconsider 

the Court’s previous order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and/or 60(b).2

I. Procedural History 

 On March 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 138) granting Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute and dismissing Plaintiff’s case without 

prejudice. Judgment was entered that same day. (Doc. 139). Plaintiff immediately filed a 

Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 142) and, on March 25, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 

Motion (Doc. 143). Nonetheless, on March 26 and 27, 2014, Plaintiff timely filed three 

 1

 Plaintiff’s Motion mistakenly refers to LRCiv 41.2, which does not exist. 

2

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) apply to reconsideration of “final judgments and 

appealable interlocutory orders.” Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrs., 869 F.2d 461, 466–67 

(9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 154 Filed 05/27/14 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 

- 2 -

successive Motions to Reconsider (Docs. 145, 146, 149). 

 Additionally, on March 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 147). Such action would normally be jurisdictional 

divesting, however, on March 28, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order holding its 

proceedings in abeyance pending this Court’s resolution of Plaintiff’s outstanding 

motions. (Doc. 150). Jurisdiction so returned, this Court now rules on Plaintiff’s four 

pending motions (Docs. 144, 145, 146, 149). 

II. Motion for Reassignment (Doc. 144) 

 Plaintiff has moved for a Reassignment of his case to another district judge under 

LRCiv 42.1. However, Plaintiff’s case has been closed by the Clerk’s Judgment 

dismissing the case on March 10, 2014. (Doc. 139; see March 10, 2014 Order of the Court 

Dismissing the Case, Doc. 138). Furthermore, Plaintiff has unsuccessfully moved to 

reopen his case through the vehicle of multiple motions for reconsideration. (Doc. 143; 

supra III). Therefore, Plaintiff’s current Motion for Reassignment (Doc. 144) is moot and, 

accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 144). 

III. Motions for Reconsideration (Docs. 145, 146, and 149) 

 Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: (1) the movant 

presents newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial 

decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law has 

occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir. 1993). A party should not file a motion to reconsider to ask a court “to rethink 

what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. 

Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). “No motion for 

reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support 

of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. 

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The Court ordinarily will deny “a 

motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of 

new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 

reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Additionally, any motion to reconsider pursuant 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 154 Filed 05/27/14 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 

- 3 -

to Rule 59(e) must “be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e). 

 Here, Plaintiff timely filed his Motions for Reconsideration on March 26 and 27, 

2014. Plaintiff does not contend that there is newly discovered previously unavailable 

evidence or that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, he 

disagrees with several of the Court’s legal conclusions. 

 The arguments in Plaintiff’s Motions are nothing more than re-arguments of the 

facts previously presented to the Court in the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and 

Plaintiff’s previous Motion for Reconsideration. (Compare Docs. 145, 146, 149, with

Docs. 133, 142 (where Plaintiff presents his position not as an unwillingness to accept 

mail, but rather only an unwillingness to sign for its receipt or to send outgoing mail, as 

required by standard Arizona Department of Corrections security protocol)). 

 To the extent that Plaintiff’s Motions to Reconsider (Docs. 145, 146, 149) are not 

successive and present newly discovered previously unavailable evidence, the Court has 

considered Plaintiff’s proffered evidence and finds that it does not materially affect the 

Court’s reasoning in its previous Order (Doc. 138). Plaintiff has failed to present the Court 

with cause to reconsider its March 10, 2014 Order granting Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration 

(Docs. 145, 146, 149) are denied. 

 For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert A. Garcia’s Motion for Reassignment of 

his Case (Doc. 144) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration (Docs. 

145, 146, 149) are DENIED. 

 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2014. 

Case 2:11-cv-02260-JAT Document 154 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 3