Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02273/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02273-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

John P. Warden, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Coolidge Unified School District, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-07-2273-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Plaintiff John P. Warden, appearing pro se, is employed as a teacher by Defendant

Coolidge Unified School District. In 2007, Plaintiff was accused of improper contact with

students at San Tan Heights Elementary School, and was, subsequently, transferred to his

current position at Coolidge High School.

On May 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant

Arizona Education Association (“AEA”) and Defendants Coolidge Unified School District,

Sarah Robles, and Thomas Beckett (“District Defendants”) alleging various claims in

connection with his transfer.

On June 5, 2008, the District Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that

Plaintiff had failed to assert any constitutional violations. Specifically, the District

Defendants contended that (1) Plaintiff cannot allege an Equal Protection claim based on a

“class of one” theory; (2) Plaintiff has not identified either a property or liberty interest with

which the District Defendants have interfered; (3) Plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable First

Amendment claim; and (4) Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to either section 1983 or

Case 2:07-cv-02273-MHB Document 85 Filed 10/27/09 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 -

section 1985. With respect to the other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint, the

District Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to state a viable RICO cause of action and

failed to state a claim pursuant to Title VII or the ADA. The Court subsequently granted the

District Defendants’ Motion on December 16, 2008.

On January 15, 2009, AEA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 1, 2009,

the Court granted AEA’s Motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiff did not establish that

AEA was a public entity as defined by statute and also failed to state any particular acts

committed by AEA that caused or contributed to his transfer or that resulted in a failure to

accommodate his disability. Further, regarding any claim alleged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983, the Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any concerted or collusive

action on the part of AEA.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order

granting AEA’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #76.)

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only where: (1) the District Court is

presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) the District Court committed clear error in its

decision; (3) the District Court’s decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening

change in controlling law. See School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir.

1993). Procedurally, motions to reconsider are generally treated as motions to alter or amend

the judgment or a motion for relief from a judgment or order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60.

Thus, relief may also be available on any of the grounds listed in Rule 60 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the Court

“to rethink what the court has already thought through.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Ballard,

73 F.Supp.2d 1094, 1115 (D. Ariz. 1999).

Although Plaintiff labels the three headings in his motion as “New Evidence,” “Clear

Error,” and “Manifest Injustice” pursuant to the reconsideration standard, the Court finds that

throughout Plaintiff’s motion, he simply asks the Court to revisit the same issues raised in

Case 2:07-cv-02273-MHB Document 85 Filed 10/27/09 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 -

relation to AEA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and to reexamine case law, which was

previously considered by the Court in deciding this matter. Plaintiff fails to present newly

discovered evidence, demonstrate clear error or that the Court’s decision was manifestly

unjust, or show that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Therefore, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. #76)

is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02273-MHB Document 85 Filed 10/27/09 Page 3 of 3