Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02770/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02770-3/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

Ronald J. Harris, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2770-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronald J. Harris has filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #67. He asks

the Court to reconsider its order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for

summary judgment. See Dkt. #65. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence; (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision; (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision;

or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. Motorola,

Inc. v. J. B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Plaintiff

has not satisfied this standard.

Case 2:04-cv-02770-DGC-ECV Document 72 Filed 02/21/08 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 -

Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite an

order informing him of his obligation to respond. Dkt. ##59, 65. Plaintiff now argues that

the Court should not have granted summary judgment when its previous screening order

(Dkt. #5) found a sufficient basis for Plaintiff’s complaint to proceed. This argument blurs

the distinction between a case screening order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and a motion for

summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At screening, the

Court must dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or

malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint may state a non-frivolous, non-malicious claim against a non-immune defendant

and yet still be disposed of through summary judgment if, following a reasonable opportunity

for discovery, “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment may be granted

against a party who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof

at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

Although the Court in this case found that Plaintiff’s complaint had stated a claim

with respect to some counts (Dkt. #5), Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ summary

judgment motion, failed to respond to evidence produced in the summary judgment motion,

and failed to create a question of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Dkt. #65. The

Court considered Plaintiff’s verified complaint in addressing Defendants’ motion, but the

complaint failed to set forth sufficiently specific factual information to overcome

Defendants’ motion. Id. There was no inconsistency between the Court’s screening of the

complaint and the subsequent granting of summary judgment. 

Plaintiff complains that the Court granted Defendants’ motion “without even the

courtesy of a real hearing.” Dkt. #67 at 7. But it was Plaintiff who failed to respond to

Defendants’ motion and failed to request a hearing. See LRCiv 7.2(f). Plaintiff claims to

have been a “practicing attorney” for “over 30 years.” Dkt. #67 at 3. If this is true, Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02770-DGC-ECV Document 72 Filed 02/21/08 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 -

certainly understood the importance of a motion for summary judgment and the importance

of responding to the motion if a response was possible.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #67) is denied. 

DATED this 20th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-02770-DGC-ECV Document 72 Filed 02/21/08 Page 3 of 3