Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00896/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00896-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Scott Huminski, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hector Heretia, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-0896 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Scott Huminski has filed a Renewed Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment. Doc. 75. The motion attempts to renew a motion previously denied by this 

Court. Doc. 42. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court 

contain no provision for a “renewed motion.” The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion 

as a request for reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling. Because the motion sets forth 

no basis for reconsideration, it will be denied. 

 Plaintiff’s motion to correct the caption of this case (Doc. 76) will be granted. The 

Clerk will be directed to correct the caption to reflect the name “Heredia.” 

 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Clarification or Findings of Law. Doc. 82. The 

motion is denied. The Court’s previous orders are sufficiently clear. 

 Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Stay Scheduling Order. Doc. 87. The motion is 

denied. The Case Management Order (Doc. 58) remains in effect. 

 Defendants have filed a “stipulation” for dismissal of this case. Doc. 85. The 

stipulation does not bear Plaintiff’s signature, and the Court does not construe Plaintiff’s 

other filing (Doc. 83) as consenting to dismissal. 

Case 2:11-cv-00896-DGC Document 89 Filed 12/16/11 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 

 The Court has received Plaintiff’s “Conditional Stipulation to Dismissal.” 

Doc. 88. Plaintiff offers to dismiss this case if the “law of the case” is that the email in 

question was a suggestion and not an order. The Court’s ruling on this issue was made in 

the context of Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. Doc. 68. The Court 

concluded that Plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits. Id. Such a determination 

does not constitute a final conclusion of law in the case. As a result, the Court construes 

Plaintiff’s “Conditional Stipulation” as not consenting to dismissal. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 75) is 

denied. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Caption (Doc. 76) is granted. The clerk shall 

correct the caption of this case to reflect the correct spelling of Heredia. 

 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification or Findings of Law (Doc. 82) is denied. 

 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Scheduling Order (Doc. 87) is denied. 

5. The Court will not dismiss this case on the basis of Defendants’ stipulation 

(Doc. 85) or Plaintiff’s conditional stipulation (Doc. 88). The clerk is 

directed to terminate these stipulations. 

Dated this 16th day of December, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00896-DGC Document 89 Filed 12/16/11 Page 2 of 2