Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00267/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00267-3/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

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 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed his pro se Preliminary Injunction Number CIV-11-

00267-CKJ to Vacate Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102

Filed on June 5, 2012 [Doc. 106], Motion to Reopen Case Number: CIV-11-00267-CKJ and

Vacate Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June

5, 2012 [Doc. 107], and Notice of Appeal [Doc. 108]. On July 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed his pro

se Appellate brief [Doc. 111].

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

Plaintiff’s [Fifth Amended] Complaint [Doc. 93]. On June 28, 2012, this Court issued its

Order [Doc. 105] denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s June

5, 2012 Order [Doc. 101] and his motion to amend his Complaint for a sixth time.

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 113 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff appears to seek a preliminary injunction against entry of this Court’s June 5,

2012 Judgment [Doc. 102] dismissing this cause of action. A preliminary injunction is an

extraordinary and drastic remedy and will not be granted absent a clear showing of likely

success in the underlying claim and likely irreparable injury. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520

U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 1867, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (per curiam); Warsoldier v.

Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2005); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 805 (9th

Cir. 1995); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must

show “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555

U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). The moving party has the burden

of proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184

F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

Additionally, the function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo

pending a determination on the merits. Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court, 840 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir.

1988). As such, there is heightened scrutiny where the movant seeks to alter rather than

maintain the status quo. Dahl v. HEM Pharms. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993)

(holding that mandatory, as opposed to prohibitory, injunctions are “subject to a heightened

scrutiny and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.”).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that this type of mandatory injunctive relief is

disfavored, and should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the movant.

Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1979).

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to show that a preliminary injunction is

warranted in this circumstance. After reviewing and considering Plaintiff’s several attempts

at filing a Complaint which stated a cognizable claim, this Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s

case because of his failure to allege a cause of action. Plaintiff has filed his Notice of Appeal

[Doc. 108] and now seeks relief from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Continuing to

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 113 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

litigate this closed case is prejudicial to the defendants, a waste of judicial resources, and as

such not in the public interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is

denied.

III. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s June 5, 2012 Order [Doc. 101]. 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). “No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written

argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B.

Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

Plaintiff alleges no newly discovered evidence, no mistake or surprise, and no fraud

by the adverse party. Plaintiff does not provide any other reason justifying relief. The motion

for reconsideration is not based on an intervening change in controlling law, nor does it offer

any new argument as to how his Fifth or Sixth Amended Complaints sufficiently state a

claim. Plaintiff submitted hundreds of pages of exhibits in opposition to motions to dismiss

and in support of his Complaints generally. Despite Plaintiff’s displeasure with this Court’s

“refusal” to extend his time to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court did

review and consider the hundreds of pages of supplemental documents filed by Plaintiff after

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 113 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

his responses were due. In short, Plaintiff has not presented any additional information to

warrant reconsideration of the Court’s previous order. See AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to file a sufficient

Complaint, yet failed to do so. The Court finds reconsideration is not appropriate, and the

motion will be denied.

IV. APPELLATE BRIEF

The Court reminds Plaintiff that this it does not have jurisdiction over his appeal. "As

a general rule, ‘[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance –

it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” Estate of Conners by Meredith v.

O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount

Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 402, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam)). Accordingly,

the Court finds Plaintiff’s appellate brief improvidently filed with this Court and directs

Plaintiff to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) Plaintiff’s Preliminary Injunction Number CIV-11-00267-CKJ to Vacate

Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June 5, 2012

[Doc. 106] is DENIED;

2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case Number: CIV-11-00267-CKJ and Vacate

Judgement [sic] and Court Order in Document Numbers: 101 and 102 Filed on June 5, 2012

[Doc. 107] is DENIED; and

3) This matter is to remain closed.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00267-CKJ Document 113 Filed 07/12/12 Page 4 of 4