Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01948/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01948-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Edward Goldwater, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Judy Freigo, State of Arizona Attorney

General, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1948-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Edward Goldwater’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc.38), Motion for Contempt of Court Proceedings (Doc. 39), Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 41), Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 42), Motion for Default

Judgment (Doc. 43), Motion for Contempt of Court Proceedings (Doc. 44) and Motion for

Court Response (Doc. 45). 

The Court will begin by addressing Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.38).

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

Case 2:05-cv-01948-SMM Document 46 Filed 12/17/07 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 -

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)). The Court properly considered

the evidence and facts in ruling on the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Strikingly similar to his Motion for Reconsideration is Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. 41). Therein, Plaintiff again maintained his innocence on the

same grounds as set forth in his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Essentially, the Motion

for Summary Judgment is another attempt at requesting reconsideration by the Court of the

same issues. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 42) and Motion for Default

Judgment (Doc. 43), the Court finds that Plaintiff has misinterpreted the applicable law.

Defendants have not defaulted, under the law, simply by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, which simply restates previously asserted arguments which

have been decided by the Court. The Court believes that Plaintiff is confused by the Rules

of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the phrase “failure to plead,” as it is stated in Fed.R.Civ.P.

55(b)(1), refers to service of process, whereby a party fails to Answer, defend, or otherwise

respond to service of process (i.e. once the party has been “served”). Consequently, when

a defendant fails to Answer or defend the case, the Clerk of Court must enter the party’s

default. However, in the present case, the Defendants merely decided not to respond to a

dispositive motion. Rule 55(b)(1) is not attributable to responses to dispositive motions.

Accordingly, the motions are DENIED. 

As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt of Court Proceedings (Doc. 39), Plaintiff has

not established that he is entitled to the relief sought. As to Plaintiff’s other Motion for

Contempt of Court Proceedings (Doc. 44), the Court is unaware of the relevance of Mr.

Yoder or the issuance of a ticket to Mr. Yoder to the present case. Accordingly, the motions

are DENIED.

Case 2:05-cv-01948-SMM Document 46 Filed 12/17/07 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 -

As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Response (Doc. 45), the motion is DENIED as

MOOT. 

DATED this 17th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01948-SMM Document 46 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 3