Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01435/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01435-3/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

Alan Troy Nimer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1435-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Response to Order and Motion for Good

Cause. (Doc. 71) Defendants have filed a Notice of Acknowledgment stating that because

Plaintiff’s motion “appears to be a motion for reconsideration, the Defendants will not respond

further unless ordered to do so by the Court.” (Doc. 72) 

Although he does not identify it as a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion

seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, doc. 68, dated April 14, 2014, in which the Court

denied Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to submit discovery requests. The Court found

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested extension. The only reason Plaintiff

gave for an extension was that he received his medical records late because he was transferred

to a different housing unit. Plaintiff failed to explain why the delay warranted an extension of

the deadline for discovery requests. 

Motions for reconsideration are governed by LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), which provides:

The Court will ordinarily deny a 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

Case 2:12-cv-01435-ROS-BSB Document 73 Filed 05/06/14 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 -

reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the

matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the

Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first

time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific

modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for

reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made

by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in

the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial

of the motion.

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

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

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

In the instant motion, Plaintiff claims he “is now showing good cause to extend” the

deadline for requesting discovery. (Doc. 71 at 1) Again, however, the only reason Plaintiff

presents for the requested extension is that he did not receive his medical records until after the

deadline passed. He questions how he could request discovery before reviewing his medical

records.

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet the standards for reconsideration. He has

not shown the Court committed clear error or shown new facts or legal authority that could not

have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Plaintiff is simply

asking the Court to reach a different decision than it did the first time it addressed the same

issue. Having failed to satisfy the standards for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied.

Case 2:12-cv-01435-ROS-BSB Document 73 Filed 05/06/14 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 -

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Order and Motion for Good Cause,

doc. 71, is DENIED.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2014.

 

Case 2:12-cv-01435-ROS-BSB Document 73 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 3