Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01775/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01775-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Samuel Meyers,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1775-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, doc. 46,

regarding the Court’s order, doc. 36, denying Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel, docs. 27, 30.

I. Motions for Reconsideration

“A motion for reconsideration is meant to correct ‘manifest error’ or to

present ‘new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s]

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.’” Ariz. ex rel. Goddard v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 273

F.R.D. 545, 558 (D.Ariz. 2011) (quoting Local R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)). The motion must

provide a valid ground for reconsideration by showing two elements. All Hawaii Tours

Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 649 (D. Haw. 1987), rev’d on other

grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (1988). First, it must demonstrate some valid reason why the

Court should reconsider its prior decision. Id. Second, it must set forth facts or law of a

strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Id. Courts

have distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration. They are: 1) an intervening

change in the controlling law, 2) the availability of new evidence, and 3) the need to

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 50 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1299,

fn. 6 (10th Cir. 2001); Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

516 U.S. 1029 (1995); Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656,

665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th

Cir. 1987); see generally C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and

Procedure, § 4478 at 790. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to “merely 

reiterate or repackage an argument previously rejected by the court; that argument is for

appeal.” PAB Aviation, Inc. v. United States, No. 98-CV-5952 JG, 2000 WL 1240196, at

*1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2000).

The District of Arizona’s Local Rule (“LRCiv”) 7.2(g)(1) provides that

“[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a

showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g), as amended

on December 1, 2010.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff files this motion for reconsideration and explains, again, his

reasons for his untimely filing of the motions to compel, docs. 27, 30. He states that he

could have done “a better job [explaining] the tardiness of his motion to compel.” (Doc.

46 at 1) Plaintiff then explains that while he was diligent in his discovery requests to

Defendant, “Defendant . . . use[d] the scheduling order to dupe the Plaintiff.” (Id. at 2)

Plaintiff does not assert the change in any controlling law; he does not

assert the availability of any new evidence; and he does not assert that the Court made a

clear error that it must correct. See, e.g., All Hawaii Tours Corp., 116 F.R.D. at 649

(recognizing three grounds for justifying reconsideration). Plaintiff does little more than

repeat his motion to compel using slightly different words. “A motion for reconsideration

should not be used to ask a court ‘to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly

or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995) (quoting

Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)). Indeed,

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 50 Filed 09/16/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

the Court addressed this very issue in its order denying Plaintiff’s motions to compel, and

concluded that “inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do

not usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd.,

507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993).

Under the standard set forth above, the Court sees no compelling reason to

reconsider its decision. Thus, the Motion to Reconsider Order of September 14, 2011,

doc. 46, is DENIED.

Dated this 16th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01775-JAT Document 50 Filed 09/16/11 Page 3 of 3