Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01619/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01619-1/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

Jenghiz K. Stewart, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1619-PHX-MHM (VAM)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jenghiz K. Stewart’s Motion “Seeking Relief

from Order Pursuant [to] Rule 60(b)(6)[,] Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. #28). The Court will deny

the motion.

I. Procedural Background

On May 27, 2005, Plaintiff, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex in

Buckeye, Arizona, filed a civil rights action (Doc. #1). In a November 4, 2005 Order (Doc.

#11), the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because he had named an immune defendant

and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint.

 On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. #18), in which

he asserted 9 counts against 33 named Defendants. In a May 26, 2006 Order (Doc. #20), the

Court issued a detailed, 12-page Order dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

because it contained conclusory allegations, failed to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, violated the “one claim per count” rule, contained factual

allegations insufficient to state a claim, and raised claims that were outside the statute of

limitations. After attempting to explain the numerous deficiencies in Plaintiff’s First

Case 2:05-cv-01619-MHM--VAM Document 30 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Amended Complaint, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

However, the Court specifically stated that

Plaintiff is warned that no further opportunities to amend

will be granted. He is cautioned to carefully read the Court’s

Order and draft his Second Amended Complaint appropriately.

On June 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File Second

Amended Complaint” (Doc. #22). In that motion, Plaintiff requested an extension of time

to file a second amended complaint “[e]ven though the Plaintiff is uncertain as to how he can

cure the deficiencies in this Second Amended Complaint.” On July 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed

a “Petition to Forgive Plaintiff’s Untimeliness and Excessiveness of Second Amended

Complaint” (Doc. #23). On July 17, 2006, the Clerk of Court lodged Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. #24).

In a September 13, 2006 Order (Doc. #25), the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for

Extension of Time and his Petition to Forgive and reviewed the Second Amended Complaint.

The Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s May 26, 2006 Order.

Specifically, the Court found that, although Plaintiff had reduced the number of claims (6)

and defendants (25) in his Second Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was

45 pages long, two-thirds longer than the First Amended Complaint, and came no closer to

a viable complaint than its predecessor. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Second Amended

Complaint without leave to amend, noting that further opportunities to amend would be futile

in light of the fact that Plaintiff had made three efforts at crafting a viable complaint and

appeared unable to do so. In accordance with the Court’s Order, the Clerk of Court entered

judgment on September 13, 2006 (Doc. #27).

On October 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion “Seeking Relief from Order Pursuant [to]

Rule 60(b)(6)[,] Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. #28) and a supporting affidavit (Doc. #29).

II. Rule 60(b)(6) Motion

In his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiff requests that the Court provide him with “yet another opportunity to bring this claim

with the assistance of counsel due to his confusion and inability to comply with the Court’s

Case 2:05-cv-01619-MHM--VAM Document 30 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Order.” Plaintiff asserts that his psychological disorders cause him to get confused, have

racing thoughts, and become delusional; that he is taking psychotropic medication which

renders him physically and psychologically unstable; that he is confused about the legal

procedures and does not understand what the Court requires; that he needs the assistance of

counsel to understand what he is required to do; and that he believes he has complied with

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has stated a claim.

“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 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)).

Under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reconsideration is

appropriate “only upon a showing of . . . ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify

relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). Rule 60(b)(6) only

applies in “extraordinary circumstances” and “has been used sparingly as an equitable

remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservation Co., 984

F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993).

Plaintiff’s motion is a request for the Court to rethink its prior decision. In prior

filings, Plaintiff made assertions regarding his psychological issues and his lack of

understanding and requested counsel. The Court previously concluded that the appointment

of counsel was not appropriate in this civil case. In addition, the Court adequately attempted

to accommodate Plaintiff’s asserted limitations by granting Plaintiff two opportunities to

amend his complaint and by issuing a 12-page order that devoted 9 pages to informing

Plaintiff of the deficiencies and defects in his First Amended Complaint and providing

sufficient information so that Plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiencies

Case 2:05-cv-01619-MHM--VAM Document 30 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

and defects. These accommodations, however, did not result in Plaintiff crafting a viable

complaint. “[Y]et another opportunity” would be futile. 

Having considered the Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and supporting affidavit, the

Court finds no extraordinary circumstances to justify the Court altering or granting relief

from the Court’s September 13, 2006 Order and judgment.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion “Seeking Relief from Order Pursuant [to]

Rule 60(b)(6)[,] Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. #28) is denied.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01619-MHM--VAM Document 30 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 4