Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02638/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02638-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jonathan McAllister, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carol Lynn Preston (Nurse Practitioner), 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2638-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Response to an Order to Show Cause and

Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration of his Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (Doc.

34). The Court now rules on these motions.

I. Issues

Plaintiff combines in his Motion: (1) a Response to an Order to Show Cause regarding

the dismissal of his First Amended Complaint; and, (2) a Motion for Reconsideration of his

Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 34). The Court will address each Motion

separately. 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of His Response to an Order to

Show Cause

1. Facts

Plaintiff began a lawsuit in December of 2010. (Doc 1). In a screening order (Doc. 12)

filed on February 24, 2011, the Court ordered service upon one of the defendants and

Case 2:10-cv-02638-JAT Document 35 Filed 07/10/12 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 -

dismissed the rest of the name defendants. (Doc. 31 at 1). Plaintiff had numerous difficulties

in effecting service on the Defendant, and in response the Magistrate Judge issued an order

giving Plaintiff a final chance to serve the Defendant. (Doc. 31). The Magistrate also

extended the deadline for service to October 31, 2011. (Doc. 31). As of March 12, 2012,

Plaintiff had not successfully effected service on the defendant, and furthermore, had not

made any attempt to do so. Id. at 2. At that time, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to

show cause why the Fist Amended Complaint should not be dismissed and assigned a

deadline of April 1, 2012. Id. As of April 6, 2012, the Court had not received a response to

the show cause order and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. (Doc. 32). On

April 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant response which was dated April 2, 2012. (Doc. 34

at 8). The Certificate of Service was dated April 6, 2012. Id. at 9. Because this response to

the show cause order was filed after the deadline, and because Plaintiff made no attempt to

explain his failure to meet the October 31 or the April 1 deadlines, Plaintiff’s claim has

already been dismissed by this Court. Because the Court received this Motion within 28 days

of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion as a

Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

2. Legal Standard

In relevant part, Rule 59 reads: “(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion

to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the

judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “A Rule 59 motion should not be granted ‘unless the

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there

is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 343 F.3d 1012,

1014 (9th Cir. 2003)(quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)(en

banc)). The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration absent a showing of

manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought

to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g). No motion for

reconsideration 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 for which the party seeks

Case 2:10-cv-02638-JAT Document 35 Filed 07/10/12 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 -

reconsideration. Id. Repeating arguments in a motion to reconsider may be grounds for

denying the motion. Id A Rule 59(e) motion may not present evidence that could have been

presented at the time of the challenged decision. Kona Enters. Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

3. Analysis

Plaintiff does not show newly discovered evidence, clearly committed error, or an

intervening change in the controlling law. Plaintiff provides the Court with a factual record

of his difficulties in effecting process, but that record ends on May 2, 2011. (Doc. 34 at 2-6).

Because the Order to Show Cause specifically orders Plaintiff to demonstrate why he failed

to meet the October 31, 2011 and April 1, 2012 deadlines, this factual record fails to provide

new evidence. Furthermore, this factual background could have been provided prior to the

challenged decision and cannot, therefore, constitute evidence in the current preceding. Kona

Enters. Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. Additionally, Plaintiff has made no effort to show any errors

in the challenged decision. Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider its decision.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of His Motion for the Appointment

of Counsel 

On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff moved for Appointment of Counsel on the grounds

that the Plaintiff is severely mentally ill. (Doc. 13). On March 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge

denied the Plaintiff’s Motion because the Plaintiff did not sufficiently show any exceptional

circumstances; specifically, the Plaintiff did not establish that he had a likelihood of success

on the merits of his case or provide sufficient evidence of his mental impairment. (Doc. 18).

Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s motion was “clear and well-written,

suggesting he is able to articulate his claims without an attorney.” Id. Plaintiff now moves

the Court to reconsider this denial. (Doc. 34). Plaintiff’s suit has been previously dismissed

and this Order denies reconsideration of that dismissal.

Because the Plaintiff’s case has been previously dismissed, his Motion for

Appointment of Counsel in this case is now moot. The Court will therefore deny

reconsideration. 

Case 2:10-cv-02638-JAT Document 35 Filed 07/10/12 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 -

II. Conclusion

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of his Response

(Doc. 34) to an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 31).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

of Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 34).

DATED this 10th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02638-JAT Document 35 Filed 07/10/12 Page 4 of 4