Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00599/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00599-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Sterling Bennett, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0599-PHX-JAT (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order dated March 16,

2006. Doc. #29. In that order, the court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint

but rejected the proposed First Amended Complaint lodged with the Clerk of Court because

it contained allegations of unsanitary conditions at the jail. In a previous order, United States

District Judge Teilborg dismissed the claim of unsanitary conditions because Plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff contends that his First Amended Complaint

does not allege the unsanitary conditions as a separate claim but rather as an effect of the

overcrowding. He therefore asks the court to reconsider its order and direct the Clerk of

Court to file the lodged First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff has failed to show that the court committed clear error or that any other basis

for reconsideration exists. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

Case 2:05-cv-00599-JAT-ECV Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 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 -

was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”). Although

Plaintiff claims that his allegations of unsanitary conditions are not a separate claim, they

could be construed as such. The District Court expressly dismissed the unsanitary conditions

claim and Plaintiff may not resurrect it simply by re-characterizing the allegations as factual

support for a different claim. Plaintiff's motion will therefore be denied.

Additionally, in the previous order, Plaintiff was given until April 10, 2006 to file a

new First Amended Complaint. As of this date, he has not done so. The Motion for

Reconsideration did not alleviate Plaintiff from complying with the court's order. Plaintiff

will be given one final opportunity to file a new First Amended Complaint. If he fails to do

so, the action will proceed under the Original Complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order dated March 16, 2006

(Doc. #29) is denied; and

That if Plaintiff intends to file a First Amended Complaint, he must do so on or before

Friday, May 5, 2006. 

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00599-JAT-ECV Document 30 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2