Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00724/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00724-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bette Jan Steinhillber, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-724-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

Pending in this closed case are Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 8) and lodged

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion and direct the

Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended Complaint.

I. Procedural Background

On March 31, 2010, Plaintiff John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3). By Order filed May 5, 2010 (Doc. 5),

the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, assessed a partial

filing fee of $1.53, and dismissed the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff was given 30 days from the filing date of the Order to file a first amended complaint

in compliance with the Order. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter a judgment of

dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff if he failed

to file a first amended complaint within 30 days. 

Case 2:10-cv-00724-RCB--DKD Document 10 Filed 09/16/10 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 two other cases which Plaintiff included in his Motion were Neuendorf v.

Unknown Party, CV 10-124-PHX-RCB (DKD), and Neuendorf v. Arizona, CV 10-607-

PHX-RCB (DKD). 

- 2 -

When Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s May 5, 2010 Order (Doc. 5), the

Clerk of Court entered a Judgment of dismissal of this action on June 21, 2010 (Doc. 7).

II. Motion to the Court

On July 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 8), in which he asks for

“extensions & or the re[]opening and new directives” for this and two other cases.1

 In the

present case, where Plaintiff submitted his Motion after entry of judgment, the only

appropriate procedural devices are: (1) a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule

59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or (2) a motion for relief from judgment pursuant

to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here, Plaintiff served his Motion within the

28 days required by Rule 59(e). Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion as

having been brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

“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) (citation omitted).

In support of his Motion, Plaintiff asserts that he has “tried to compile all information

needed for the Court but must ask the Court for leniency in l[ay]man terms.” Plaintiff further

asserts that he is “in jail with no monies and need[s] to reopen all above cases.”

Here, after having considered the foregoing standards, and liberally reviewing the

circumstances of Plaintiff’s case, the Court’s previous Order filed May 5, 2010 (Doc. 5), the

record in this case, and Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court declines to set aside the Judgment of

dismissal entered on June 21, 2010 (Doc. 7) and reopen this case. The Judgment of dismissal

was entered in this action for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 5, 2010

Order. Plaintiff does not dispute that he failed to so comply. Accordingly, the Court will

Case 2:10-cv-00724-RCB--DKD Document 10 Filed 09/16/10 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 -

deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

III. Lodged Second Amended Complaint

On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff lodged a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) in this

closed case. In light of the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 8), the Court will direct the

Clerk of Court not to file Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s “Motion to the Court” (Doc. 8), which the Court construes as being

brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is denied.

(2) The Clerk of Court must not file Plaintiff’s lodged Second Amended

Complaint (Doc. 9).

(3) This case must remain closed.

DATED this 14th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00724-RCB--DKD Document 10 Filed 09/16/10 Page 3 of 3