Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02234/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02234-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

David Novak, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona, State of, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-02234-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Motion for Reinstatement of Lawsuit and Opportunity to Amend 

Lawsuit or in the Alternative, if Not Granted, Notice of Appeal to the Federal Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. 8), filed by pro se Plaintiff David Novak. On 

December 10, 2015, upon screening Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the State of Arizona with 

prejudice because the doctrine of state sovereign immunity precludes Plaintiff from 

seeking money damages against the State and, with regard to Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief, a federal district court cannot review state court decisions in an appellate 

capacity. (Doc. 7.) Because Plaintiff cannot remedy his claims against the State by 

amending the Complaint, the Court dismissed his claims with prejudice. 

 Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision. Motions 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 

Case 2:15-cv-02234-JJT Document 9 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 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). 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). Plaintiff has provided the Court with no basis to 

withdraw its prior decision, and the Court must therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration. The Court thus construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a Notice of Appeal, filed 

December 22, 2015. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reinstatement of 

Lawsuit and Opportunity to Amend Lawsuit (Doc. 8). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to construe Plaintiff’s 

Motion as a Notice of Appeal filed on December 22, 2015 (Doc. 8), and process the 

Notice of Appeal accordingly. 

 Dated this 14th day of January, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02234-JJT Document 9 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 2