Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00244-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

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 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

$79,010.00 in United States currency, et. 

al., 

Defendants.

No. CV10-0244-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On March 3, 2011, pro se Claimant, Quezon Gray, filed a motion to suppress a 

disclaimer of ownership. Doc. 34. Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 41), and Mr. Gray did 

not file a reply. On July 5, 2011, the Court denied Mr. Gray’s motion to suppress. Doc. 

45. Mr. Grey then filed a motion on July 18, 2011, and again on September 9, 2011, 

labeled, “Defendant’s Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer of Ownership of 

U.S. Currency.” Docs. 47, 48. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 49, 50. For the 

reasons stated below the Court will deny the motion. 

 Mr. Gray gives no legal basis for the Court to rule on a supplement to a motion the 

Court has already denied. To the extent that the Court treats Mr. Gray’s motion as a 

supplement, the Court will deny the motion as moot. 

 Mr. Gray states in his reply that the motion should be construed as a motion for 

reconsideration. Doc. 50 at 2. Because federal courts must “liberally construe the 

>inartful pleading= of pro se litigants@ (Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 

1987) (citation omitted)), the Court will address Mr. Grey’s motion as a motion for 

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 51 Filed 11/14/11 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 

reconsideration. 

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to 

make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See N.W. 

Acceptance Corp.v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United 

States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). A motion for 

reconsideration will be denied Aabsent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new 

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court=s] attention earlier 

with reasonable diligence.@ LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an 

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM 

(ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). 

 Mr. Grey alleges no legal error in the Court’s denial of his original motion. He 

merely “re-urges the Court” to suppress his disclaimer of ownership, and he alleges 

“more detailed facts” and “other factual circumstances excluded from [his] previous 

pleading” (Doc 47 at 1). All of the facts, however, pertain to the stop by Officer Bentley 

during which Mr. Grey signed the disclaimer of ownership that Mr. Grey already 

discussed in his prior motion, and Mr. Grey offers no reason why he could not have 

presented the more detailed facts at that time. See Docs. 47 §§ 2-15, 34 at 1-2. It appears 

that Mr. Grey only provided his new account of what happened in order to make new 

legal arguments – in this case, constitutional claims – that he could have made previously 

but did not. See Doc. 47 §§ 14, 16. Even under the liberal pleading requirements applied 

to pro se litigants, Mr. Grey fails to meet the standards for a motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS ORDERED that Claimant’s “Supplement to Motion to Suppress Disclaimer 

of Ownership of U.S. Currency” (Doc. 47) is denied. 

 Dated this 14th day of November, 2011. 

 

 

Case 2:10-cv-00244-DGC Document 51 Filed 11/14/11 Page 2 of 2