Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01110/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01110-1/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.

Director Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1110-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

I. Background

Plaintiff Jenghiz K. Stewart is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman

in Florence, Arizona. In a June 16, 2010 Order, the Court dismissed without prejudice

Counts One, Two, Five, Six, and Seven, a portion of Count Four, and Defendants Ryan,

Clenny, Mendoza, Moody, Credio, Green, Ibara, Kendall, Martinez, and Sampler. The Court

required Defendants Enmore, Evens, and Harrison to answer Count Three; and required

Defendants Greely, Kenyon, Volare, and Eblen to answer a portion of Count Four. 

On July 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Relief from Order . . . Pursuant to Rule

60[,] Fed[.] R. Civ. P.[,] Excusable Neglect, Mistakes” (Doc. 9).

B. Pending Motion

In his Request for Relief from Order, Plaintiff seeks relief from the Court’s June 16th

Order because of Plaintiff’s excusable neglect and mistakes due to “lack of proper supplies

and much c[h]aos.” Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal of Counts One,

Case 2:10-cv-01110-JWS Document 10 Filed 07/27/10 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 -

Two, Five, Six, and Seven, and allow him to “salvage [his] Complaint and state viable/triable

claims.” 

First, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is inapplicable. Rule 60(b)

applies only when there is “a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and the June 16th Order

is not a final order because the Court dismissed some, but not all, of the claims and did not

direct the entry of a partial final judgment. See Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 318 F.2d 622, 629

(9th Cir. 1963) (“‘‘final’ judgments, orders or proceedings referred to in the first sentence

of [Rule 60(b)] . . . are those which terminate the litigation in the district court subject only

to the right of appeal”); see also Interstate Power Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 992

F.2d 804, 807 (8th Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b) did not apply when “claims between the other

parties to the litigation remained unresolved in the district court”). However, the Court, in

its discretion, will review Plaintiff’s Motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to

Federal Rule Civil Procedure 54(b) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g).

“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)).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court’s June 16th Order, and

Plaintiff’s Request for Relief from Order. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision.

Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Request for Relief from Order. In so doing, the Court

notes that Rule 15(a)(1)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course

within: 

(A) 21 days after serving it, or 

Case 2:10-cv-01110-JWS Document 10 Filed 07/27/10 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 -

(B) if the pleading is one to which a

responsive pleading is required, 21 days

after service of a responsive pleading or 21

days after service of a motion under Rule

12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.

Because the Defendants have not yet been served in this action and have therefore not served

any responsive pleadings, Plaintiff is not precluded from amending his Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The reference to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss is withdrawn only with

respect to Plaintiff’s “Request for Relief from Order” (Doc. 9).

(2) Plaintiff’s “Request for Relief from Order” (Doc. 9) is denied.

(3) All other matters must remain with Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss for

disposition as appropriate. 

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01110-JWS Document 10 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 3