Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00267/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00267-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 103] appears to be a Sixth Amended

Complaint.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

STEVEN MONTES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

STATE OF ARIZONA; CITY OF

TUCSON, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0267-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed his pro se Motion to Amend Complaint [Doc. 103].

On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conflict of Interest [Doc. 104].

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2012, this Court issued its Order [Doc. 101] screening and dismissing

Plaintiff’s [Fifth Amended] Complaint [Doc. 93]. Plaintiff filed yet another motion to amend

his Complaint on the same date.1

II. SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint may be deemed a motion for

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 105 Filed 06/28/12 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 -

reconsideration, the Court will deny the motion.

As this Court has previously stated, “[t]he 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 reasonable

diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for

reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could

not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4)

voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying

relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is

wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Mere disagreement with a

previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp.,

689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal authority

or new facts to support a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, such motion is denied.

“The power to grant leave to amend, however, is entrusted to the discretion of the

district court, which ‘determines the propriety of a motion to amend by ascertaining the

presence of any of four factors: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party,

and/or futility.’” Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010); See also Foman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 183, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Zucco Partners, LLC v.

Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009). Local Rule 15.1, Rules of Practice of

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, directs that “[a] party who moves

for leave to amend a pleading . . must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading . . .,

which must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends . . . . The

proposed amended pleading is not to incorporate by reference any part of the preceding

pleading, including exhibits.” LRCiv. 15.1. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s proposed

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 105 Filed 06/28/12 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 -

amendments fail to comply with this mandate.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint [Doc. 103] largely reiterates

claims previously dismissed by this Court without leave to amend. See Order 2/29/12 [Doc.

88]; Order 6/5/12 [Doc. 101]. The Court again declines the invitation to repeat all of the

reasons that these claims fail. Moreover, any “new” claims are wholly conclusory and

without any factual basis. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129

S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted). “Nor does a complaint suffice

if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (citations

omitted) (alterations in original). Plaintiff’s latest Complaint is deficient and as such the

Court finds his attempt to amend futile.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend [Doc.

103] is DENIED. This matter shall remained CLOSED.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 105 Filed 06/28/12 Page 3 of 3