Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00697/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00697-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric Weinstein, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-697-PHX-JAT (JRI)

ORDER

On September 15, 2010, Plaintiff Eric Weinstein, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a Motion to Alter or Amended Judgment and/or Motion for

Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 20). Plaintiff’s Motion is brought pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 59(e).

I. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

Plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the Court’s August 13, 2010 Order. In that Order,

the Court dismissed without prejudice Counts One, Three through Ten, Twelve through

Fourteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen, Twenty, and Twenty One of Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint. The Court also dismissed without prejudice all fictitiously named

defendants other than John Doe Supervisors III, IV, and VIII; Jane Doe Supervisor IV; John

and Jane Doe Officers IV; John Doe VII; and Jane Doe X. The Court concluded that,

liberally construed, Plaintiff had stated a claim in Count Two of the Second Amended

Complaint against Defendants Arpaio and John Doe Supervisors III and IV; in Count Eleven

Case 2:10-cv-00697-JAT Document 22 Filed 09/22/10 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

1

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a document is deemed “filed” when delivered by

the prisoner to a prison official for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988);

Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 988-89 (9th Cir. 1993), disapproved of on other grounds

in McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff signed his motion on

September 9, 2010, and, therefore, that is the earliest date he could have delivered the motion

to prison officials.

- 2 -

against Defendant Arpaio; in Count Fifteen against Defendants John Doe Supervisor VIII,

Jane Doe Supervisor IV, John and Jane Doe Officers IV, John Doe VII, and Jane Doe X; and

in Count Eighteen against Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County. The Court required

Defendants Arpaio and Maricopa County to file an Amended Answer.

Plaintiff cannot bring his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) because no judgment was

entered and the Court’s August 13, 2010 Order is not an appealable interlocutory order. See

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that Rule

59(e) only applies to final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders). The Order is not

an interlocutory order generally appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), and the Court did not

provide the statement necessary to make the Order an interlocutory order appealable under

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Cf. Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 680 (9th Cir. 1980)

(“Because the orders appealed from dismiss the action as to only some of the defendants, it

is clear that they were not final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 at the time they were

entered. Moreover, plaintiffs did not obtain the interlocutory certificate required by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b). Under these circumstances [the appellate court is] ordinarily precluded from

assuming jurisdiction.”). 

Moreover, the Court will not consider the Motion as a motion for reconsideration

pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g). Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(2)

states that “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later

than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the Order that is the subject of the

motion.” The Order was filed on August 13, 2010, and Plaintiff’s Motion was filed, at the

earliest, on September 9, 2010.1

 Plaintiff’s motion, therefore, is untimely under Local Rule

7.2(g)(2), and Plaintiff has not proffered any good cause for his untimely filing.

Case 2:10-cv-00697-JAT Document 22 Filed 09/22/10 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 -

II. Motion for Leave to Amend

In the alternative, Plaintiff has sought leave to amend his Second Amended

Complaint. The Court will deny this request, without prejudice, because Plaintiff has failed

to comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1. That Rule states, in relevant part, that

[a] party who moves for leave to amend a pleading, or who

seeks to amend a pleading by stipulation and order, must attach

a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an exhibit to the

motion or stipulation, which must indicate in what respect it

differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or

striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text

to be added. The proposed amended pleading is not to

incorporate by reference any part of the preceding pleading,

including exhibits.

Plaintiff is not precluded from filing a new motion pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, but he must comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin is withdrawn only with respect

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amended Judgment and/or Motion for Leave to File an

Amended Complaint (Doc. 20).

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amended Judgment and/or Motion for Leave to

File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) is denied.

(3) All other matters must remain with Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin for

disposition as appropriate.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00697-JAT Document 22 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 3