Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01143/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01143-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure 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

Elena Guzman De Castaneda, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stephen L. Fickett, District Director,

Phoenix, Arizona, Bureau of Citizenship

and Immigration Services; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-1143-PHX-ROS

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. For the following

reasons, the motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2006, this Court issued an order dismissing the case as moot. (Doc.

26) The Court found that Plaintiff was no longer requesting the relief which was the entire

basis for her case. In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that the Court should

have found that Defendants erred by requiring her to submit Form-212 and that Defendants

also erred by not granting her adjustment of status application. 

ANALYSIS 

A motion for reconsideration should not be used "to ask the Court to rethink what the

Court had already thought through–rightly or wrongly." Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). In its Order, the Court observed

Case 2:04-cv-01143-ROS Document 29 Filed 02/22/06 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 -

that "Defendants' denial of Form-212 . . . was the entire basis for Plaintiff's Complaint and

has served as the focal point for the litigation." (Order) Also, "[n]either Plaintiff nor

Defendant . . . adequately addressed what relief may be ordered if Form-212 is no longer

relevant." (Order) The Court considered the impact of Form-212 no longer being relevant

and concluded that the case was moot. Plaintiff believes that the court erred in reaching this

conclusion, but that argument "should of course be directed to the Court of Appeals."

Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01143-ROS Document 29 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2