Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00303/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00303-4/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 SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Torrance Derrick Mincey, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0303-PHX-GMS (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Torrance Derrick Mincey, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex, West Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend.

(Doc. 1, 8.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court also dismissed for

failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 12, 13.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 14.) In an Order filed on November 13, 2012, the Court dismissed the

Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and this action. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff

has filed a motion for reconsideration and an affidavit. (Doc. 18, 19.) Plaintiff’s motion will

be denied. 

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the 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, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Case 2:12-cv-00303-GMS--LOA Document 21 Filed 03/13/13 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 -

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

(D. Ariz. 1992). 

In his motion for reconsideration and affidavit, Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to

rethink what it has already thought through. As noted above, that is not a basis for

reconsideration. Plaintiff has not pointed to newly discovered evidence or shown that the

Court clearly erred or an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc. 18.)

DATED this 13th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00303-GMS--LOA Document 21 Filed 03/13/13 Page 2 of 2