Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02357/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02357-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sherman Terrell Pruitt, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-02357-PHX-DJH (ESW)

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Sherman Terrell Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 29) was denied by Order of the Court filed August 18, 2015 (Doc. 34). Plaintiff 

seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order in the pending Motion for Reconsideration for 

Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 36). Plaintiff asserts that library hours, 

Plaintiff’s lack of understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff’s 

lack of legal training support reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. 

 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See 

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if 

the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 

in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a 

Case 2:13-cv-02357-DJH-ESW Document 46 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing 

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier 

with reasonable diligence”). 

 Here, Plaintiff has not presented any basis which warrants reconsideration of the 

Court’s prior Order denying the request to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has 

presented no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. The 

Court has committed no clear error. Plaintiff has failed to establish manifest injustice. 

 Plaintiff having failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration, the Motion for 

Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint will be denied. 

CONCLUSION 

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend 

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) is denied. 

 Dated this 24th day of November, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-02357-DJH-ESW Document 46 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2