Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02626/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02626-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Shirley D. Stone and John W. Stone,

Plaintiff,

v.

Judge Redfield T. Baum, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 05-2626 PHX DCB

ORDER

On December 22, 2005, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaint, and because

Plaintiffs proceed pro se they were given leave to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs

have not yet filed an Amended Complaint, but on January 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside or Strike the Order of December 22, 2005. 

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

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).

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 119 Filed 01/12/06 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

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

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

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 119 Filed 01/12/06 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

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 Plaintiffs' motion to vacate, set aside, and or strike and the

Order entered on December 22, 2005. The facts and circumstances which caused this Court

to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint have not changed. There are no new facts which were

discovered since the Court issued its Order. There was no manifest error of law. There is

no basis under Rule 59 or Rule 60 for reconsideration or to vacate, set aside, or strike the

Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, and or Strike

(document 115) is DENIED.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02626-DCB Document 119 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3