Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00572/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00572-3/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 1

 Williams, Ortega, and Spurlock. 

WO JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay Jeffers, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Ortega, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-0572-PHX-MHM-LOA

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 159). Plaintiff

seeks reconsideration of the Court’s September 14, 2006 Order granting Defendants’1

 Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. # 154). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 

I. Reconsideration Standard

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). 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)).

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA Document 162 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 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

2 The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Local Rule of Civil

Procedure 7.2(g). While Plaintiff avers that he has been extremely ill, he fails to provide any

specific information about his hospitalization. Because it has been over ten months since

judgment was entered and the Court has no evidence of Plaintiff’s inability over that time to

properly move for reconsideration, the Court cannot find the requisite good cause to excuse

the untimeliness of the motion.

- 2 -

Here, Plaintiff makes no showing that reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff claims

that he was unable to properly respond to Defendants’ motion because of significant health

problems. But Plaintiff does not supplement his motion with any relevant evidence regarding

Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s action was filed outside the applicable statue of

limitations. Rather, Plaintiff simply argues that federal cases are subject to a three-year

statute of limitations as opposed to Arizona’s two-year statute. Plaintiff, however, is

mistaken. As previously articulated, in § 1983 actions, the applicable statute of limitations

is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471

U.S. 261, 266, 274-76 (1985); Vaughan v. Grijalva, 927 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir. 1991). The

Arizona statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. See A.R.S. § 12-

542(1); Madden-Tyler v. Maricopa County, 943 P.2d 822, 824 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997);

Vaughan, 927 F.2d at 478. Because Plaintiff has failed to provide any legally cognizable

evidence to support his motion, his Motion for Reconsideration must be denied.2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 159) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA Document 162 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2