Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01290/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01290-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jermaine Donte Griffin, ) No. CV 01-1290-PHX-PGR

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

)

)

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

 Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment

(Doc. 44). Judgement was entered in this case on May 3, 2006. According to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(e), motions to alter or amend judgments must be filed no later than ten

days after entry of the judgement. In addition, any motion for a new trial must also be filed

within ten days of entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). The Plaintiff's motion

requesting that the Court reconsider its Judgment and grant the Plaintiff a new trial was not

signed until May 22, 2006. As such, the Plaintiff's motion is untimely under both subsections

of Rule 59.

Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration of a district court order based on: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3)

fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

Case 2:01-cv-01290-PGR-MS Document 50 Filed 09/19/06 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is

based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment

should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of judgment. See Fed. R, Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(b)(6). Generally, a motion for

reconsideration under Rule 60 should not be granted unless: (1) there has been an intervening

change of controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence has come to light; or (3) it's

necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. School District No. 1J v.

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, a Rule 60(b) motion must be

brought within a reasonable time, which cannot be more than one year if the motion is based

on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The Court finds the Plaintiff's argument that he is a layman and lacks legal experience

unpersuasive as it is not one of then enumerated reasons found in Rule 60 for granting

reconsideration. Since the Plaintiff has not shown that the Court erred in entering judgment

in favor of the Defendants, that new evidence has come to light, or that there has been an

intervening change in the law, see ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1262, reconsideration pursuant to Rule

60(b) is inappropriate. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Judgment (New

Trial) (Doc. 44) is DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:01-cv-01290-PGR-MS Document 50 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2