Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02482-1/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. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 12-2482-PHX-DGC (DKD) 

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. In a February 7, 2013 screening Order, the Court 

dismissed Defendants Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Brock, Stapley, Wilson, 

Wilcox, Brewer, Beddome, Sergeant Beddome, Campanaro, McCain, Sanchez, Unknown 

Lieutenant, Sergeant A5105, and MCSO Maintenance Supervisors, and required 

Defendant Arpaio to answer the Complaint. 

On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Court[’]s 

Order . . . or in the Alternative Give Mr. Chapa Permission to Appeal” (Doc. 14). 

Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider its dismissal of the above Defendants or allow him 

to file an interlocutory appeal of the dismissal. 

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

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 

Case 2:12-cv-02482-DLR Document 16 Filed 03/05/13 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 

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 failure to properly brief an issue does not warrant granting a 

motion to reconsider. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the February 7th screening Order, and 

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

decision. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

 The Court will also deny Plaintiff’s request for permission to appeal. Title 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 states that “[t]he courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals 

from all final decisions of the district courts of the Untied States.” A district court=s 

decision in a civil case is final if it “‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing 

for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 

776 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Catlin v. United States. 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)). Orders 

dismissing some but not all claims are not appealable final orders. See Unioil, Inc. v. 

E.F.Hutton & Co., 809 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1986). Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure allows the District Court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or 

more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that 

there is no just reason for delay.” The Court will decline to enter final judgment against 

the dismissed Defendants. 

 With respect to the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides that the courts of appeals “shall have jurisdiction of appeals 

from: (1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, 

continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions.” Accordingly, Plaintiff is not 

required to obtain the Court’s permission before appealing the denial of injunctive relief 

and the Court will deny as moot this portion of the Motion. 

Case 2:12-cv-02482-DLR Document 16 Filed 03/05/13 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 

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Court[’]s Order . . . or in the Alternative [to] 

Give Mr. Chapa Permission to Appeal” (Doc. 14); all other matters must remain with the 

Magistrate Judge. 

(2) Plaintiff’s February 25, 2013 “Motion for Reconsideration of Court[’]s 

Order . . . or in the Alternative Give Mr. Chapa Permission to Appeal” (Doc. 14) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 5th day of March, 2013. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02482-DLR Document 16 Filed 03/05/13 Page 3 of 3