Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01246/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01246-1/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Luan Luanhasa, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1246-PHX-MHM (BPV)

ORDER

I. Pending Motion and Prior Order

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Luan Luanhasa’s May 24, 2007 Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. #39) of the Court’s April 30, 2007 Order (Doc. #37) dismissing this

case with prejudice. 

The Court stated in its April 30, 2007 Order:

More than 15 months have passed since the Court first

informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his Complaint and gave

Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure them.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. This is

true despite the numerous extensions of time he has obtained by

filing a variety of motions and a frivolous appeal. And, given

Plaintiff’s April 16, 2007 Motion seeking yet another indefinite

extension of time, it is clear that he has no intention of filing an

amended complaint in the foreseeable future.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s April 16, 2007 motion for

an extension of time because the Court previously informed

Plaintiff that “[n]o further extensions will be granted” and

because Plaintiff presents no sound basis for yet another

extension. The Court will dismiss this case because Plaintiff has

failed to timely file an amended complaint despite multiple

extensions of time and multiple warnings from the Court that

failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in

Case 2:05-cv-01246-MHM--BPV Document 40 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal

“[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these

rules or any order of court”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating a district court may dismiss

action for failure to comply with any order of the court). And,

as Plaintiff was warned on multiple occasions, this dismissal

will count as a “strike” under the “three strikes” provision of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(Doc. #37 at 4) (footnote omitted).

II. Discussion

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate 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,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “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 considered Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and finds no basis to

alter its Order. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #39) is denied.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01246-MHM--BPV Document 40 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 2