Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03293/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03293-3/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 JWB

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Curtis Reed Cooper, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, et al. 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3293-PHX-MHM-MHB

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant the Pinal County Sheriff’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. # 28). The Court will deny the motion and will provide Defendant 10 days to file a

second motion to dismiss.

I. Reconsideration Standard

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), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). 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)).

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 32 Filed 05/23/07 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 -

Here, Defendant makes no showing that reconsideration is appropriate. Defendant

submitted supplementary evidence that was available to him when he filed his initial motion

to dismiss. Consequently, attempting to introduce that evidence in a Motion for

Reconsideration is inappropriate and will not be considered. Defendant has also not

demonstrated that the Court’s decision to deny the initial motion to dismiss was clear error.

Nor has Defendant argued that there has been an intervening change in the law.

Further, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g), Plaintiff is not permitted

to respond to a Motion for Reconsideration, preventing him from addressing Defendant’s

evidence. Consequently, the motion will be denied. But because the Court denied

Defendant’s first motion without prejudice, the Court will provide Defendant with 10 days

to file a second motion to dismiss.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. # 28) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant has 10 days to file a second Motion

to Dismiss. 

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03293-MHM-MHB Document 32 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2