Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00078/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cv-00078-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Campbell,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. Chaves, et al.,

Defendant. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 04-78 TUC DCB

ORDER

On November 29, 2005, this Court denied Defendants Hunt and Hardesty summary

judgment. On December 27, 2005, the Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration

reasserting they had no involvement in the affairs forming the basis of Plaintiff's Bivens

action. Defendants argue that Co-Defendant GEO Group's payment to the Plaintiff in

October 4, 2005 represents payment for the loss of property and associated costs. (Motion

to Reconsider, Ex. A: Scroggin Affidavit at 2.)

The Court was aware of GEO Group's payment to Plaintiff for the lost property at

the time it ruled against Defendants Hunt and Hardesty. (See Order filed November 29, 2005

at 12.) Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration ignores Plaintiff's claims that they either

failed to have policies and procedures, or failed to follow policies and procedures, for

resolving losses of property by inmates being transferred from one facility to another, when

one facility is a private contract facility. Id. at 6-9, 12.

At the outset, the Court notes that motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare

circumstances:

The motion to reconsider would be appropriate where, for example, the court

has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the

adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 48 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 4
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

not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to

reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts

since the submission of the issue to the court. Such problems rarely arise and

the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.

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

also, Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 308-09 (D. Ariz. 1992).

"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

(3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986).

Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances:

The motion to reconsider would be appropriate where, for example, the court

has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the

adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error

not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to

reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts

since the submission of the issue to the court. Such problems rarely arise and

the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.

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

also Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 308-09 (D. Ariz. 1992).

"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), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). 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., 99 F.R.D. at 101; See Refrigeration Sales Co. v. MitchellJackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983). Arguments that a court was in error on the

issues it considered should be directed to the court of appeals. Id. at 7.

Motions to reconsider are generally treated as motions to alter or amend the

judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 59(e). See In re Agric. Research

& Tech. Group, Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir. 1990); MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman,

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986). A motion to amend a judgment based on arguments that

could have been raised, but were not raised, before judgment was entered may not properly

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 48 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 4
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

be granted. 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2nd § 2810.1

at 127-28; Demasse v. ITT Corporation, 915 F. Supp. 1040, 1048 (Ariz. 1995) (a Rule 59(e)

motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised

or presented prior to judgment); Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993) (proper

to deny Rule 59(e) request for relief not requested in amended complaint).

Alternatively, a court can construe a motion to reconsider as a Rule 60 motion for

relief from a judgment or order. Under Rule 60, a party can obtain relief from a court order

for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move

for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

The Court has reviewed Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and its Order entered on

November 29, 2005. The facts and circumstances which caused this Court to rule against

Defendants have not changed. The facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ claims

against Defendants Hardesty and Hunt have not changed since this Court's Order concerning

these matters; there are no new facts which were discovered since the Court’s disposition of

the motion for summary judgment. There is no manifest error of law. There is no basis

under Rule 59 or Rule 60 for reconsideration. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (document 45) is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within five days of the filing date of this Order

the Defendants shall supplement their status report regarding the progress of Plaintiff's

/////

/////

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 48 Filed 01/17/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

administrative claim. It appears that he filed it on December 20, 2005, by mailing a BP9

form to the Warden at Safford FCI. 

DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.

Case 4:04-cv-00078-DCB Document 48 Filed 01/17/06 Page 4 of 4