Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00575/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00575-1/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Francis A. Grandinetti, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bateman, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-575-PHX-MHM (BPV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Francis A. Grandinetti, II, who is confined in the Corrections Corporation of

America facility in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On April 15, 2008, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action under the “3-

strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and judgment was entered. The action was

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new action accompanied by the full $350.00

filing fee.

On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Relief Following Clerk’s Judgment”

(Doc. #7) and a “Motion for Appellate Injunction” (Doc. #8). The Court will deny the

Motions.

The Court will treat Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief as a motion for 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,

Case 2:08-cv-00575-MHM--BPV Document 12 Filed 06/05/08 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 -

(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). 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 not presented the Court with any grounds in support of his motion for

reconsideration. The Court has reviewed both Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Order of

dismissal and finds no reason to vacate the judgment of dismissal in this case. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Relief will therefore be denied.

In his Motion for Appellate Injunction, Plaintiff makes several statements that appear

to be related to the facts in his Complaint. However, Plaintiff makes no request for relief in

the Motion. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion for Appellate Injunction.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s April 25, 2008 Motion for Relief (Doc. #7) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s April 25, 2008 Motion for Appellate Injunction (Doc. #8) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00575-MHM--BPV Document 12 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2