Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01856/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01856-9/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

 On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address reflecting that

he is currently held in Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail. (Doc. 48.) 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Wilson Overturf, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Janice K. Brewer, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1856-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff George Wilson Overturf, who was confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex, Central Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to

amend.1

 (Doc. 1, 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court also

dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff requested and

was granted several extensions of time to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 22, 24,

27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 38.) On

November 26, 2012, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state

a claim and dismissed this action. (Doc. 43.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc.

Case 2:11-cv-01856-GMS--BSB Document 49 Filed 03/13/13 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

 Malfeasance, absent more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

- 2 -

44.) Plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion for leave to amend seeking additional

opportunities to file an amended complaint in which to attempt to state a claim. (Doc. 45.)

In an Order filed on December 4, 2012, the Court denied that motion. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff

subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Second Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 47.) That motion will be denied. 

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the 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, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 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. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

(D. Ariz. 1992). 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration for various reasons and his disagreement with the

Court’s conclusions. Plaintiff disagrees with two footnotes concerning prescription labels.

He contends that the Court erred in dismissing claims against Chavez based on failure to

comply with prison regulations. Plaintiff also asserts that he did not receive certain

prescriptions on various dates. In addition, he asserts that malfeasance by Romero, French,

and Swindle could be proven with discovery.2

 Plaintiff also apparently disagrees with the

Court’s attempt to address Plaintiff’s allegations chronologically. He otherwise complains

about various points and submits new exhibits. Plaintiff has not pointed to newly-discovered

evidence, nor has he demonstrated that the Court committed clear error or an intervening

change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff asks the Court to rethink what it has already

thought through. That is not a basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for

reconsideration will be denied.

Case 2:11-cv-01856-GMS--BSB Document 49 Filed 03/13/13 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc. 47.)

DATED this 13th day of March, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01856-GMS--BSB Document 49 Filed 03/13/13 Page 3 of 3