Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00050/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00050-4/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 NA 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Shaka, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 15-0050-PHX-SMM (BSB) 

 O R D E R 

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Shaka, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a February 13, 2015 Order, the Court 

denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the 

administrative and filing fees or file a complete Application to Proceed. On March 2, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a certified six-month trust account statement. In a May 12, 2015 

Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint for 

failure to state a claim; specifically, the failure to allege facts to link the alleged 

constitutional violation to any named Defendant. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file 

an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On May 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. In a June 22, 2015 

Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and this action because Plaintiff 

had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Clerk of Court 

Case 2:15-cv-00050-SMM--BSB Document 14 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

entered a Judgment of Dismissal that same day. On July 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion 

for Reconsideration (Doc. 13). The Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration. 

I. Motion for Reconsideration 

In his Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s June 22 Order 

dismissing his First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. In his Motion, 

Plaintiff (1) argues that the Court should “give legal weight” to a declaration submitted in 

Parsons v. Ryan, CV12-0601-PHX-DKD (D. Ariz.); (2) expresses his disagreement with 

the Court’s conclusion that he failed to state a claim against any named Defendants; and 

(3) attaches documents to support his assertion that he did state a medical care claim in 

his First Amended Complaint. 

II. Legal Standard and Analysis 

Because Plaintiff seeks an Order altering or amending the Judgment in this case 

and the Motion was filed within 28 days of the entry of Judgment, the Court will construe 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as having been brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be granted 

‘unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 

342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 

1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). Such motions are disfavored and are not the place for 

parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See LRCiv 7.2(g); 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Nor should 

such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought through-rightly 

or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) 

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 

1983)). 

 Plaintiff does not discuss how the Rule 59(e) standard applies in this case. 

Plaintiff cites various documents to support his disagreement with the Court’s analysis 

Case 2:15-cv-00050-SMM--BSB Document 14 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

that Plaintiff failed to state a medical care claim against any named Defendant.1 As 

discussed in the Court’s June 22 Order, Plaintiff’s allegations and attachments reflect that 

consulting physicians have indicated that surgery may be needed at some point, but have 

recommended less drastic treatment to see if Plaintiff gains relief without surgery. While 

Plaintiff may eventually receive surgery, Defendants did not act with deliberate 

indifference by following less drastic recommendations of physicians. Plaintiff’s 

disagreement with the Court’s Order is not a basis for reconsideration and his arguments 

do not demonstrate that the Court committed clear error or that the Court’s Order was 

manifestly unjust. Nor has Plaintiff argued that there was an intervening change in 

controlling law. Plaintiff has failed to state any valid basis for the Court to reconsider its 

June 22, 2015 Order. Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied and 

this action will remain closed. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 13) is denied

and this action shall remain closed. 

DATED this 9th day of July, 2015. 

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

 

1

 Plaintiff is no stranger to litigation before this court. See Malumphy v. Cluff, et al., CV94-1728-PHX-SMM (LOA) (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 1998); Malumphy v. Ryan, et al., CV 95-0272-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 1997); Shaka v. Stewart, et al., CV00-1742-

PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Aug. 12, 2004); Shaka v. Ryan, et al., CV10-2253-PHX-SMM (D. 

Ariz. Mar. 4, 2015); As reflected in his prior actions, Plaintiff has gained a familiarity with crafting a viable complaint. 

Case 2:15-cv-00050-SMM--BSB Document 14 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 3