Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00754/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00754-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

1 That Rule provides in relevant part that “[n]o response to a

motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the

Court[.]” LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). Because the court did not deem it necessary,

the defendants were not required to file a response to the pending

reconsideration motion. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bradley D. Proctor, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 11-0754-PHX-RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Corrections Corp. of )

America, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

Currently pending before the court is plaintiff pro se’s

motion “Seeking Clarification of the Record, Order to Remand,

and Reconsideration[.]” (Doc. 38) at 1 (emphasis omitted). 

Relying upon Local Rules of Civil Procedure (“LRCiv”)

7.2(g)(2),1 and construing the foregoing as a motion for

reconsideration, defendants Virginia Cox, William Crane, and

Lois Miracle (“the defendants”) filed a “Notice of NonCase 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 46 Filed 06/04/12 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 Plaintiff is “question[ing] this court’s authority to” decline

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, and, thus,

as he views it, “leav[ing] [such] claims in limbo where [this court] has

disavowed jurisdiction in those matters.” Mot. (Doc. 38) at 4. 

- 2 -

Response” to plaintiff’s motion. Not. (Doc. 39) at 12-14

(emphasis omitted). Because, as discussed below, plaintiff’s

motion is untimely, the court will deny it. 

Background

The court assumes familiarity with its order filed

February 13, 2012, requiring the defendants to answer certain

claims in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), but

“dismiss[ing] the remaining claims and Defendants with or

without prejudice[]” as specified therein. Ord. (Doc. 34) at

1:23-24. In the pending motion, plaintiff is seeking

reconsideration of several aspects of that order. First,

plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of this court’s decision

“declin[ing] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any

state law claims against . . . defendants” Corrections

Corporation of America, John Doe Flores; Jane Doe Alfaro, and

John Doe DeLash.2 See id. at 9:26-27 (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)). Second, plaintiff contends that the FAC “clearly

indicate[s] an absence of federal jurisdiction[;]” hence,

“the court is obliged to reconsider . . . the issue of

jurisdiction.” See id. at 8. Third, the plaintiff

specifically seeks “reconsideration,” as he frames it, on

“the issue of retaining an unpled jurisdiction over the three

remaining defendants Crane, Cox, and Miracle.” Id.

Discussion

In accordance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(2), “[a]bsent good cause

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 46 Filed 06/04/12 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 -

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.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(2)

(emphasis added). Where, as here, service upon plaintiff was

by mail, the court adds three days to this deadline in

accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), for a total of 17 days. 

Plaintiff Proctor is seeking reconsideration of this

court’s order filed February 13, 2012, and served upon him by

mail on that same date. Computing the time in the manner

just described, plaintiff thus had until March 1, 2012, by

which to file his reconsideration motion. Plaintiff did not

do that, however. Instead, he waited until March 21, 2012,

to file that motion. Further, plaintiff did not address the

good cause standard which “primarily considers the diligence

of the party filing the untimely motion.” See Chavez v.

CCA/Eloy Detention Center, 2008 WL 2225759, at *1 (D. Ariz.

May 28, 2008) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc.,

975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). On this record, the court

conceives of no reason why plaintiff did not act diligently

in filing this reconsideration motion. This basis alone –

untimeliness – warrants denial of plaintiff’s reconsideration

motion. See id. (citing Baker v. D.A.R.A. II, Inc., . . . ,

2008 WL 824000, at * 1 (D.Ariz. Mar. 25, 2008) (denying

untimely motion for reconsideration where “good cause [had]

not been shown.”) (citing, in turn, LRCiv 7.2(g)(2)); see

also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro

se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that

govern other litigants.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 46 Filed 06/04/12 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 -

(9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court's local

rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”)).

Conclusion

Because plaintiff Proctor’s reconsideration motion was

not timely filed in accordance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(2), and

because he did not establish the requisite good cause for

that timely filing, the court hereby DENIES his “Motion

Seeking Clarification of the Record, Order to Remand and

Reconsideration” (Doc. 38) (emphasis omitted).

DATED this 4th day of June, 2012.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:11-cv-00754-RCB Document 46 Filed 06/04/12 Page 4 of 4