Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02179/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02179-0/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

1

 The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Reconsider

notwithstanding the simultaneous filing of the Notice of Appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

2

 Although the Motion to Reconsider was filed on April 18, 2006, the motion is dated as

being signed on April 17, 2006 and the Court considers that date to be the filing date under the mail

box rule for purposes of considering the timeliness of the motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 59(e)

and 6(a).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry Northcross Patterson, )) Plaintiff, ) No. CV-03-2179-PHX-PGR ) vs. )) ORDER CO Maciel, et al., )) Defendants. ) ) 

The Court entered its order (doc. #45) granting the defendants' summary

judgment motion and dismissing this action on March 31, 2006, and it entered its

judgment of dismissal (doc. #46) on April 3, 2006. On April 18, 2006, the plaintiff

filed both a Motion to Reconsider (doc. #47) and a Notice of Appeal (doc. #48).

Having considered the Motion to Reconsider1

, which the Court construes

as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.

59(e)2

, American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Construction

Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court finds that the motion should

be denied because the motion is in effect a rehash of arguments already raised

Case 2:03-cv-02179-PGR-VAM Document 52 Filed 05/18/06 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 -

by the plaintiff and rejected by the Court; the motion does not present the Court

with newly discovered evidence, establish that there has been an intervening

change in the controlling law, or persuade the Court that its order of dismissal

was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust as a matter of law. School District No.

1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (doc. #47) is

denied. 

DATED this 17th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02179-PGR-VAM Document 52 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2