Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00964/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00964-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephen Bishop, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-964-PHX-SMM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Stephen Bishop, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 9, 2008,

the Court issued an Order directing Defendant Schriro to answer Count II of the Complaint

and dismissing the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. On June 27, 2008,

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #7), asking that the Court reinstate Counts

I and III of the Complaint.

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). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of

Case 2:08-cv-00964-SMM Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 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 -

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)). Further, the failure to properly

brief an issue does not warrant granting a motion to reconsider. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers

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

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff essentially resubmits arguments made in

the original Complaint; he does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence nor

does he assert that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. The Court has

reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the screening Order, and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration and finds no reason to reconsider its dismissal of Counts I and III of the

Complaint. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s June 27, 2008 Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. #7) is DENIED.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00964-SMM Document 9 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 2