Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00015/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00015-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

David Jay Benak,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Joe Arpaio, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-06-0015-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Court's rulings from the hearing on October

16, 2007 in which the Court sustained some of Defendant's objections to some evidentiary

requests of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's first basis for reconsideration is simply seeking to have the

Court re-think what it has already thought because Plaintiff is unhappy with the result. This

is not a valid basis for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B.

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

Next, Plaintiff attempts to argue that the Court was mistaken in concluding that he no

longer has certain aspects of his retaliation claim pending: specifically those portions of his

retaliation claim that he imbedded in Count I of his complaint. Plaintiff argues that only the

portions of Count I of his complaint that dealt with access to the courts was dismissed and

that his retaliation claim in Count III and any theory of retaliation he included in Count I still

remain in this case. The Court disagrees. The Court has read the screening order at Doc. #4,

and in the section on Count I, it states, "Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this Count

without prejudice." Doc. #4 at 4. Therefore, Count I was dismissed in its entirety and any

Case 2:06-cv-00015-JAT Document 57 Filed 11/05/07 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

 1 Plaintiff did move to amend his complaint after the close of discovery, but this

motion was denied because Plaintiff failed to lodge his proposed amended complaint as

required by the Civil Local Rules (Plaintiff was advised of the fact that he had to lodge

the proposed amended complaint in the screening order of February 1, 2006). Order of

December 18, 2006 (Doc. #27 at 1-2). In this same order, the Magistrate Judge granted

Plaintiff an extension of time to complete discovery until January 6, 2007. Despite

- 2 -

theory of retaliation Plaintiff believes he injected into his access to the courts claim in Count

I has been dismissed. Only Plaintiff's retaliation claim found in Count III is proceeding in

this case.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that if this Court finds the portion of Count I Plaintiff believed

was a retaliation claim to have been dismissed in the screening order, then Plaintiff seeks

reconsideration of the screening order (which he calls relief from judgment). First, to clarify,

Plaintiff incorrectly refers to the screening order as the Magistrate Judge's screening order.

In fact, the order was issued by another district court judge who later recused from Plaintiff's

case. 

Second, the general rule is that a district court judge should not ordinarily overrule the

decision of a previous district court judge after a case is transferred. Loumar, Inc. v. Smith,

698 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1983). "The prior decision should be followed unless: (1) the

decision is clearly erroneous and its enforcement would work a manifest injustice, (2)

intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration appropriate, or (3) substantially

different evidence was adduced at a subsequent trial." Delta Savings Bank v. U.S., 265 F.3d

1017, 1027 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion and finds no basis to

deviate from the general rule that this Court should not overrule a decision by the prior

district court judge. In particular, Judge Rosenblatt's dismissal of this Count was without

prejudice. Therefore, Plaintiff had an opportunity between when the screening order issued

(February 1, 2006) and the close of discovery (October 8, 2006) to move to amend his

complaint if he wished to correct this dismissal. Plaintiff never moved to amend his

complaint within this eight month period.1

 Accordingly, the Court will not deviate from the

Case 2:06-cv-00015-JAT Document 57 Filed 11/05/07 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

having been told twice how to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff still failed to lodge

an amended complaint with a motion to amend within this extended discovery deadline.

- 3 -

general law of the case rules to give Plaintiff relief from an Order when he had ample

opportunity to move to amend the Complaint to cure the dismissal of Count I.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion for relief

from judgment (Doc. #52) is denied.

DATED this 5th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00015-JAT Document 57 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3