Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01075/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01075-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

Avram J. Ellman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 13-1075-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Avram J. Ellman’s motion for reconsideration

of the Court’s Order denying his application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. 41).

On May 22, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s application for

attorney fees under the EAJA. Specifically, the Court found that Defendant’s decision to

defend the ALJ’s determination was substantially justified stating, “[a]lthough the Court

ultimately vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded this matter for further consideration and

explanation, the record supports a finding that reasonable minds could have differed

concerning the inferences made by the ALJ as well as the sufficiency of detail provided by

the ALJ in her decision.” Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his request for reconsideration.

Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the discretion of the

court. See Barber v. State of Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). “Motions to

reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances[.]” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner,

909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be

Case 2:13-cv-01075-MHB Document 43 Filed 06/05/15 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 -

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)

(citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993)). Motions for reconsideration should not be used for the purpose of requesting

the court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through-rightly or wrongly.’”

Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1352 (quoting 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) (same). Moreover, the Rules of Practice of

the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, state that: “No motion for reconsideration

of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in

opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection

may be grounds for denial of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g).

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to rethink what

it has already thought through. As noted above, that is not a basis for reconsideration.

Plaintiff has not pointed to newly discovered evidence or shown that the Court clearly erred

or an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order

denying his application for attorney fees under the EAJA (Doc. 41).

DATED this 4th day of June, 2015.

Case 2:13-cv-01075-MHB Document 43 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 2