Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02625/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02625-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

Lawrence Wade Miles, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

T. Reed, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-2625-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 43)

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, doc. 41, denying his Motion for

Appointment of Counsel to Include Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiff appears to argue he is entitled to reconsideration because, as a result of delays at the

prison where he is housed, Plaintiff’s Reply was filed late. Thus, the Court did not have the

benefit of Plaintiff’s Reply, doc. 42, when it issued the order Plaintiff is challenging.

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

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.

Case 2:12-cv-02625-JJT-BSB Document 44 Filed 06/09/14 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 -

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)).

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet the standards for reconsideration here.

Plaintiff has not shown the Court committed clear error or that the initial decision was

manifestly unjust. Nor has Plaintiff shown newly discovered facts or legal authority that could

not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Plaintiff is

simply asking the Court to reach a different decision based on consideration of his untimely

Reply. The Court, however, has reviewed Plaintiff’s Reply and finds it would not have affected

the Court’s ruling. Having failed to satisfy the standards for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion

will be denied.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, doc. 43, is DENIED.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2014.

 

Case 2:12-cv-02625-JJT-BSB Document 44 Filed 06/09/14 Page 2 of 2