Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00289/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00289-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Araya Wolde-Giorgis, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mr. Alex Dillard, Mr. William Dillard II,

Mr. Dan Jensen, Ms. Deirdre Andrews and

Dillard's Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-289-PHX-MHM

ORDER

In this case, the Court now considers Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (Dkt. # 61), Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 62), Plaintiff's Motion

to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 63), and Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion

to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. ## 64 & 65).

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff has filed a second Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. # 61). In his

Motion, Plaintiff provides, inter alia, that he has been unemployed since 1993 and that the

only income he receives is a monthly assistance of $139 in cash, $152 in food stamps, and

Section 8 housing assistance from Scottsdale Housing and Department of Economic Security.

Plaintiff has provided adequate information for this Court to allow his to proceed in forma

pauperis. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is granted. 

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 5
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 -

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 62) was filed more than 10 days after

entry of Judgment. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) regarding a motion for relief from judgment or order. Rule 60(b)

provides in relevant part as follows: 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the Court may

relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final

judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)

fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4)

the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,

released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is

based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer

equitable that the judgment should have prospective application;

or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of

judgment. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and only appropriate if the

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), cert. denied,114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). Motions for reconsideration are not the place for

parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Collins v. D.R. Horton,

Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing Northwest Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the

court to rethink what it has already thought. Id. (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32

F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz. 1998). Accordingly, courts grant such motions only in rare

circumstances. See Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 308-09 (D.Ariz.

1992).

Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to adequately consider his arguments in his

Motions the Court ruled on in its September 22, 2006 Order. However, Plaintiff has not

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 5
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 -

advanced any ground for reconsideration cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1)-(6). Nor has

Plaintiff shown "extraordinary circumstances" for purposes of obtaining relief under Rule

60(b)(6). In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc. v. Wyle, 889 F.2d 242, 250 (9th Cir. 1989).

Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. 

LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Leave to file an amended pleading under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) "shall be freely given

when justice so requires" and this policy "'is to be applied with extreme liberality.'" Owens

v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Morongo

Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). Inferences should

be drawn "in favor of granting the motion" to amend. Griggs v. Pace American Group, Inc.,

170 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 21, Fed.R.Civ.P., provides in relevant part that

parties may be dropped or added "by order of the court on motion of any party ... at any stage

of the action and on such terms as are just." Courts generally have applied the same

equitable considerations in determining joinder or amendment. Heslop v. UCB, Inc., 175 F.

Supp. 2d 1310, 1316-17 (D.Kan. 2001). 

On October 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a third Motion to File an Amended Complaint

(Dkt. # 63). On November 2, 2006, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion to File

an Amended Complaint (Dkt. ## 64 and 65). In its September 22, 2006 Order, the Court

granted Plaintiff's second Motion to File an Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff need not

seek leave to file an Amended Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff is directed simply to file his

Amended Complaint without filing an additional Motion to Amend. 

With regard to Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint, the Court notes that

Plaintiff's attached proposed Amended Complaint is nearly identical to the Amended

Complaint he filed in this case on August 28, 2006. The only difference the Court can

discern is Plaintiff's removal of his family members as co-Plaintiffs. In fact, Plaintiff's

proposed Amended Complaint includes as Defendants Alex Dillard and William Dillard II,

and claims for relief based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the First, Fifth, and

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, sections 4, 6, and

8 of the Arizona Constitution. 

The Court now reiterates to Plaintiff that in its September 22, 2006 Order (Dkt. # 58),

the Court dismissed this case as to Defendants Alex Dillard and William Dillard II. The

Court dismissed these Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

In the same Order, the Court also dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's claims under 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986; violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments

to the U.S. Constitution, and violation of Article II, section 4, 6, and 8 of the Arizona

Constitution. The Court dismissed these claims because Plaintiff has not sued a state actor.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides in relevant part that, upon its own

initiative, a court may order stricken from a pleading any immaterial or impertinent matter.

The Court advises Plaintiff to make the appropriate changes to his Amended Complaint by

removing dismissed Defendants and claims before filing it pursuant to the Court's September

22, 2006 Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), if Plaintiff includes dismissed parties or claims in his

Amended Complaint, the Court will order stricken such parties or claims Plaintiff includes

that the Court has already dismissed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

(Dkt. #61) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #62)

is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Complaint

(Dkt. #63) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the Court's September 22, 2006

Order, Plaintiff pro se shall file an Amended Complaint. Once Plaintiff lodges his Amended

Complaint, the Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court grants an extension of time until

November 10, 2006 for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED instructing the U.S. Marshals to serve the Amended

Complaint on previously unserved Defendants, namely, Mr. Dan Jensen and Ms. Deirdre

Andrews, on behalf of the Plaintiff pro se and in forma pauperis. 

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00289-MHM Document 66 Filed 11/06/06 Page 5 of 5