Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01128/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-01128-0/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

LMH

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Clinton Joseph Slone, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Warden Ivan Bartos, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-1128-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

By Order and Judgment entered August 30, 2005 (Doc. ##121-122), the Court granted

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the action. Presently pending is

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order to Compel Defendants to Show Cause Why Plaintiff was

Placed on a Maximum Security Unit” (Dkt. #125). Defendants have filed a response (Dkt.

#126). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

Because Plaintiff submitted his motion after entry of judgment, the Court must treat

it either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North Am.

Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A Rule 59 motion must be filed within

ten days of entry of judgment. FED.R.CIV. P. 59(e). Calculation of the ten-day time period

does not include weekends or legal holidays. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a). Judgment was

entered on August 30, 2005, and Plaintiff’s motion therefore was due on September 14, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-01128-MHM-DKD Document 129 Filed 09/30/05 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

- 2 -

His motion was received on September 9, 2005, and the Court will therefore consider it under

Rule 59(e). 

“A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should not be granted, absent highly

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’”

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc, per curiam) (emphasis

in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)),

cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1082 (2000). This type of motion seeks “a substantive change of mind

by the court.” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Miller v.

Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)). 

Prior to dismissal of his action, Plaintiff filed several motions seeking injunctive relief

on the basis that his placement was a threat to his safety. He was denied relief. In the

present motion, Plaintiff requests the Court to order Defendants to show cause why he was

denied placement in protective segregation and instead placed in a maximum security unit

intended for inmates with higher security rating than him. Plaintiff believes that the

placement is retaliatory for his litigation activities. If Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim that he

was retaliated against based on his conduct in the present lawsuit, he must raise it in a new

action. He already has raised a strikingly similar retaliation claim in another action. See

Slone v. Arizona Dep’t of Corr., No. CV 04-2548-PHX-MHM (DKD) (D. Ariz.) (Dkt. #9,

First Am. Compl., Count I). Plaintiff cannot raise new claims via a post-judgment motion

in the present action.

In addition, if Plaintiff’s motion were interpreted as a request for injunctive relief (as

Defendants have argued), it is also improper. A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief

“must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the

conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)

(per curiam) (Eighth Amendment claim cannot provide basis for preliminary injunction

against alleged acts in retaliation for filing claim). In other words, Plaintiff must seek

Case 2:02-cv-01128-MHM-DKD Document 129 Filed 09/30/05 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

- 3 -

injunctive relief related to the merits of his underlying claim. Because there presently is no

complaint pending, Plaintiff’s request is not properly before the Court at this time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. #125) is

denied.

DATED this 25th day of September, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-01128-MHM-DKD Document 129 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3