Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04177/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04177-5/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

1

The Court dismissed Count I, which alleged overcrowding at the jail, for failure to

exhaust available administrative remedies (Doc. #15).

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jamonz Ross, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Jamonz Ross brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (Doc. #1). On November 21, 2007, the Court

granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II (Doc. #68). Before the

Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (Doc. #70). 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by

inadequate medical care (Count II) and unsanitary conditions (Count III) at the Maricopa

County jails (Doc. #1 at 5-6).1

 In Count II, Plaintiff claimed that when he sought medical

care, he was told to put in a “tank order” to request treatment, but that these orders were

either refused or Plaintiff was referred to the next shift, who in turn referred Plaintiff to

another shift (id. at 5). Plaintiff’s medical needs included treatment of a bullet wound to his

buttocks from an injury received before entering the jail (see Doc. #64, Pl.’s Statement of

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 84 Filed 04/15/08 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 -

Facts ¶ 7). Plaintiff also alleged that staph infections were rampant in the jail and it would

take days to treat open sores. He claimed that as a result, he suffered a staph infection that

went untreated (Doc. #1 at 5). 

Defendant moved for summary judgment on Count II (Doc. #59). The Court granted

the summary judgment motion on the grounds that (1) Defendant demonstrated that Plaintiff

received regular treatment for a bullet wound and there was no evidence of injury or harm

due to a delay in treatment, (2) there was no evidence of injury or harm from a 2-month delay

in treatment for a staph infection, (3) and Plaintiff failed to set forth any specific facts as to

deliberate indifference on the part of Defendant (Doc. #68). 

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Order (Doc. #70). He

asserts that when he responded to Defendant’s motion, he was under the impression that he

was limited to addressing only those arguments put forth by Defendant; therefore, he did not

submit evidence of his suffering caused by the delay in medical treatment (id. at 1). Plaintiff

alleges that he experienced unnecessary harm and pain due to the delay in treatment of his

bullet wound. Further, he claims that the delay in treatment for his staph infection resulted

in a more severe infection. Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant is directly responsible

for the staph infection because he is responsible for the jail conditions, which are filthy (id.

at 2). Attached to his motion are copies of medical records that, according to Plaintiff,

demonstrate the delay in treatment (id., Attachs.).

No response was ordered by the Court so Defendant’s response memorandum will not

be considered (Doc. #71). See LRCiv 7.2(g) (“[n]o response to a motion for reconsideration

and no reply to the response may be filed unless ordered by the Court”). 

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 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). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the

court to rethink what it has already thought through. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 84 Filed 04/15/08 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 -

Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Reconsideration is only appropriate if 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).

“No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made

in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers

Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

III. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff makes no showing that reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff implies

that Defendant did not raise arguments related to whether there was a delay in treatment or

whether Plaintiff suffered harm during a delay. But the summary judgment motion,

supported by Dr. Wilcox’s declaration, clearly put forward Defendant’s contention that there

was no delay in treatment (Doc. #59; Doc. #60, Ex. D, Wilcox Decl. ¶¶ 3-4). Although

Plaintiff now provides more detailed allegations about the delay in care, he presented this

same argument in opposition to the summary judgment motion (see Doc. #63 at 2). And the

medical records Plaintiff submits with his motion do not constitute new evidence that was

previously unavailable.

Moreover, Plaintiff does not cite to any new case law that would support

reconsideration, nor does he demonstrate that the Court’s ruling was manifestly unjust. His

Motion for Reconsideration merely expresses disagreement with the Summary Judgment

Order. As such, reconsideration is not warranted and Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #70) is denied.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-04177-MHM Document 84 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 3