Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02228/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02228-0/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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Arenberg, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2228-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

I. Background

On October 19, 2010, Plaintiff David Arenberg, who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex -Florence in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and a Motion for

Preliminary Injunction. 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Ryan is responsible for executing

and maintaining contracts with outside medical providers and that his failure to do so

constitutes deliberate indifference; that Defendant Malcolm is responsible for scheduling and

providing outside medical consultations, but acted with deliberate indifference by failing to

schedule and provide an outside medical consultation for Plaintiff; that Defendant Taylor is

responsible for ensuring that outside medical consultations are “made and kept” and was

deliberately indifferent by failing to schedule and ensure Plaintiff’s outside urology

appointment; and that Defendant Taylor was deliberately indifferent in failing to timely

Case 2:10-cv-02228-JWS Document 9 Filed 11/29/10 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

1

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a service packet, which

Plaintiff returned on November 12, 2010. The Clerk of Court, on November 15, 2010,

forwarded the service packet to the United States Marshal for service on Defendant Ryan.

- 2 -

answer Plaintiff’s grievance and Defendant Ryan was deliberately indifferent in failing to

answer Plaintiff’s second-level grievance appeal.

In a November 3, 2010 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and

dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Malcolm, his claims against

Defendant Taylor, and his claim regarding Defendant Ryan’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s

grievances. The Court ordered Defendant Ryan to answer the portion of Plaintiff’s

Complaint alleging that Defendant Ryan was deliberately indifferent in failing to maintain

contracts with outside medical providers and ordered Defendant Ryan to respond to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1

On November 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment (Doc. 8).

II. Discussion

In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court should reinstate his claims against

Defendants Malcolm and Taylor because the failure to schedule or provide outside medical

appointments constitutes deliberate indifference. He also contends that the Court should

reinstate his claims against Defendants Ryan and Taylor regarding their failure to respond

or failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s grievances, asserting that the failure to respond to

medical grievances constitutes deliberate indifference.

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)

Plaintiff cannot bring his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure because no judgment was entered and the Court’s November 3, 2010 Order is not

an appealable interlocutory order. See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461,

466 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that Rule 59(e) only applies to final judgments and appealable

interlocutory orders); cf. Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 680 (9th Cir. 1980)

Case 2:10-cv-02228-JWS Document 9 Filed 11/29/10 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 -

(“Because the orders appealed from dismiss the action as to only some of the defendants, it

is clear that they were not final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 at the time they were

entered. Moreover, plaintiffs did not obtain the interlocutory certificate required by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b).”). However, the Court, in its discretion, will review Plaintiff’s Motion as a

motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g).

B. Motion for Reconsideration

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “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). Such motions

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already

thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

1983)).

The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the November 3rd Order, and Plaintiff’s

Motion. Thee Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. Thus, the Court will deny

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

(Doc. 8) is denied.

DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-02228-JWS Document 9 Filed 11/29/10 Page 3 of 3