Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Demetrius Antwan Wilson,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01613-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration. (Doc. 67); 

(Doc. 68); (Doc. 73). 

I. Background 

 On June 30, 2015, the Court entered its Order, (Doc. 64), accepting in part and 

denying in part the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 37), regarding 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, (Doc. 23). The Court allowed Plaintiff to amend and 

subsequently screened Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). 

(Doc. 64 at 67). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for damages against John Doe 2, 

John Doe 4, John Doe 5, B. Piirinen, and Scott Frye because these claims are barred by 

qualified immunity. (Id. at 1820). However, the Court did not dismiss Plaintiff’s claims 

for injunctive relief against these parties; therefore the parties themselves were not 

entirely dismissed from this action. (Id. at 22). 

 Additionally, the Court dismissed one of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claims because Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts necessary to 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 93 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

establish that John Doe 9 was aware of, but disregarded, Plaintiff’s serious medical need 

when he provided Plaintiff with two pairs of gloves every other day for changing his 

colostomy. (Id. at 12). Plaintiff now comes before the Court by way of three Motions for 

Reconsideration. 

II. First Motion 

 In the First Motion, Plaintiff requests clarification as to why the Court dismissed 

John Doe 2, John Doe 4, and John Doe 5, but ordered discovery against the parties. (Doc. 

67). The Court declines to reconsider its Order in this regard, but nonetheless provides an 

explanation. As explained above, see infra p. 1, the Court dismissed only the claims for 

damages, and not the claims for injunctive relief, against these parties. Therefore, these 

John Does remain parties to this action so far as Plaintiff’s injunctive claims remain 

viable. 

III. Second Motion 

 In the Second Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its conclusion 

that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim against John Doe 9 in Count Four. 

(Doc. 68). For the following reasons, the Court will deny the Motion. 

 “The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order.” Motorola, Inc. v. 

J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing Barber v. 

Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nitri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 

394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are 

not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs.” Id. 

(citing Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 92526 (9th Cir. 

1988)). 

 To “best balance[] the competing interests of judicial accuracy and judicial 

economy” the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration only if Plaintiff 

shows that one of the following factors is satisfied: 

(1) There are material differences in fact or law from that presented to the 

Court and, at the time of the Court’s decision, the party moving for 

reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal differences 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 93 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

through reasonable diligence; 

(2) There are new material facts that happened after the Court’s decision; 

(3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or enacted after the 

Court’s decision; or 

(4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to 

consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s 

decision. 

Motorola, 215 F.R.D. at 586 (emphasis in original). 

Plaintiff does not make any allegations regarding the first three factors. (Doc. 68). 

Therefore, the only remaining factor to consider is whether the movant makes a 

convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to 

the Court before its decision. 

 Plaintiff alleges that because John Doe 9 went to school to work in a medical 

setting, he must have been aware that Plaintiff could contract a disease by handling feces 

without gloves and that two pairs of gloves every other day was not sufficient. (Doc. 68 

at 2). However, this allegation is not found in the Complaint and the Court therefore 

cannot treat it as true. A motion for reconsideration is not the appropriate vehicle for 

making new allegations not found in the Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff does not make a 

showing that the Court failed to consider material facts. Because Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration does not satisfy any of the factors necessary to grant a motion to 

reconsider, the Court must deny the Motion. 

IV. Third Motion 

 In his Third Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its order 

dismissing damages claims against Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 4, and John Doe 5, which 

Defendants have identified as Pamela Brooks, LPN, Teresa DeMille, RN, and Jeffrey 

Alvarez, M.D., respectively. The Motion mostly consists of claims that Defendants have 

hindered Plaintiff’s prosecution of his case by “not giving up the names.” (Doc. 73 at 2). 

This argument fails. Even if Plaintiff is correct that Defendant has unreasonably refused 

to answer Plaintiff’s requests for these parties’ names, that is not relevant to the issues in 

the Court’s screening order. The Court dismissed the damages claims against Jane Doe 2, 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 93 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

Jane Doe 4, and John Doe 5 because they are entitled to qualified immunity, not because 

their names were not known. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that satisfies 

any of the factors required to prevail in a motion to reconsider. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 67), is

DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 

68), is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 

73), is DENIED

 Dated this 11th day of August, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 93 Filed 08/11/15 Page 4 of 4