Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00344/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00344-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jenghiz K. Stewart, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brian C. Bond, Esq., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-344-PHX-MHM (ECV)

ORDER

I. Pending Motion

On May 8, 2007, Plaintiff Jenghiz K. Stewart, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, filed Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #8) of

the Court’s April 30, 2007 Order (Doc. #5). In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s

Complaint for failure to state a claim because Defendant was not acting under color of state

law and because Plaintiff’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff states that he “feels he can present a viable claim”

and that “not affording the plaintiff a chance to amend this salvag[e]able claim den[ie]s him

the opportunity for a fair trial and due process.”

II. Discussion

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is

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,

Case 2:07-cv-00344-MHM--ECV Document 9 Filed 05/17/07 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 -

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp.

v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions should not be used for the

purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through–rightly or

wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims

that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the

allegation of other facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint

before dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed without leave to amend because the defects

cannot be corrected. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and

finds no basis to alter its Order. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #8) is denied.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00344-MHM--ECV Document 9 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2