Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02565/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02565-5/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Armando R. Aros, III, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2565-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Extension of Time. (Docs. 216, 217) In the order for which Plaintiff seeks

reconsideration, doc. 215, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File a

Supplemental Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery and Extend Deadlines.

(Docs. 193, 194) In the second motion, Plaintiff requests a 45-day extension to respond to

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff contends in the motion for reconsideration that the Court overlooked an

alternative to an outright denial of his motion to file a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff claims

the Court “could have allowed the Supplemental Complaint solely to the extent that Plaintiff

be permitted to debate the evidence bearing on his Vitamin D deficiency and the subsequent

improvement to his health caused by greater exposure to direct sunlight.” (Doc. 216 at 2)

(emphasis in original) 

Motions for reconsideration are governed by LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), which provides:

Case 2:11-cv-02565-SPL-BSB Document 218 Filed 06/27/14 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

- 2 -

The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent

a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that

could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

Any such motion shall point out with specificity the matters that the movant

believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being

brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not

presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s

Order. No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written

argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that

resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for

denial of the motion.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is appropriate

if the district 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). “The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of

law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d 906,

909 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). Such motions should not be used for the

purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through - rightly or

wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

Here, Plaintiff has not shown the Court’s denial of his motion to file a supplemental

complaint constituted clear error, or that it should be reconsidered based on newly discovery

evidence or an intervening change in the law. The motion for reconsideration will, therefore,

be denied. However, the Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental

complaint should not be interpreted to preclude Plaintiff from presenting proper summary

judgment evidence pertaining to his Vitamin D levels, including evidence showing alleged

changes in those levels based on exposure to direct sunlight. Plaintiff may present such evidence

on summary judgment to support his claim in Count Thirteen that he has received inadequate

exposure to direct sunlight, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Regarding the motion for additional time to respond to Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment, this is Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of the response deadline.

Case 2:11-cv-02565-SPL-BSB Document 218 Filed 06/27/14 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 -

The Court previously granted an extension until June 23, 2014. (Doc. 214) The Motion for

Summary Judgment was filed on April 18, 2014. After review of the reasons set forth in

Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds a thirty day extension is warranted. The motion will,

therefore, be granted in part. No further extensions will be granted.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, doc. 216, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, doc. 217,

is GRANTED in part. The motion is granted in that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a response

to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is extended by thirty days. Plaintiff’s response

must be filed no later than July 23, 2014. No further extensions will be granted.

DATED this 26th day of June, 2014.

Case 2:11-cv-02565-SPL-BSB Document 218 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 3