Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08316/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08316-0/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

JDDL-K

WO NA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Deutsch,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 19-08316-PCT-JAT (MHB)

ORDER

Plaintiff Charles Deutsch, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman, 

filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 10, 2020 Order, the Court granted the Application 

to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 

days to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

I. Pending Motion

On February 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discovery and Reconsideration 

(Doc. 6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. As a 

courtesy, the Court will grant Plaintiff 30 days from the filing date of this Order to file a 

first amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s January 10, 2020 Order. 

A. Request for Discovery

In the Motion, Plaintiff asks for an “independent unbiased expert to acquire video 

and audio regarding the date and time of [an] incident” that is the subject of his civil rights 

claims. Plaintiff claims the video and audio recordings contain “exculpatory evidence.” 

Case 3:19-cv-08316-JAT--MHB Document 7 Filed 03/26/20 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

JDDL-K

The Court construes this request as a request for discovery, and the request will be denied 

as premature. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen it to determine 

whether Plaintiff’s claims may go forward. If the Court determines that Plaintiff may 

proceed, defendants will be required to respond to the amended complaint. After 

defendants have responded, the Court will issue a scheduling order setting the time for the 

parties to conduct discovery. 

B. Request for Reconsideration

In his Motion, Plaintiff states that “the Complaint must be readdressed” because the 

Court did not allow Plaintiff to “defend his lawful access to all evidence pertaining to his 

factual and honest complaint.” Requests for reconsideration should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 

A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where 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). 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)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor 

may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in

opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis 

for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 

1988).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the January 10, 2020 Order, and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and Reconsideration. The Court finds no basis to 

Case 3:19-cv-08316-JAT--MHB Document 7 Filed 03/26/20 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

JDDL-K

reconsider its decision. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration.

II. Warnings

A. Release

If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending, and the filing fee has not 

been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either (1) notify the Court 

that he intends to pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee within 120 days of his release or 

(2) file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to comply may 

result in dismissal of this action.

B. Address Changes

Plaintiff must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule 

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must not include a motion for other 

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 

action.

C. Possible “Strike”

Because the Complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, if Plaintiff fails to 

file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in the January 10, 2020 

Order, the dismissal may count as a “strike” under the “3-strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). Under the 3-strikes provision, a prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal 

a civil judgment in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “if the prisoner has, on 3 or 

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or 

appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, 

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

D. Possible Dismissal

If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with every provision of the January 10, 2020 Order 

and this Order, including these warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further 

notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court 

may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

Case 3:19-cv-08316-JAT--MHB Document 7 Filed 03/26/20 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

JDDL-K

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery and Reconsideration (Doc. 6) is denied.

(2) Plaintiff has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file a first amended 

complaint in compliance with the January 10, 2020 Order and this Order.

(3) If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of 

Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment of dismissal of this action with 

prejudice that states that the dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

Case 3:19-cv-08316-JAT--MHB Document 7 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 4