Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00193/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00193-3/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carlos Paul Montoya, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

R. Dear, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-193-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Carlos Paul Montoya, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexLewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On March 11, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma

pauperis status, ordered Defendants Dear and McCarville to answer Count I of the

Complaint, and dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants without prejudice. 

On March 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to

reinstate the claims and Defendants that were dismissed in the March 11th screening Order.

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 2:10-cv-00193-RCB Document 13 Filed 04/09/10 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)). 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).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Complaint, and

the screening Order. The Court finds no basis for reconsideration of the screening Order and

will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s March 23, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.

#8) is denied.

Dated this 8th day of April , 2010 .

Case 2:10-cv-00193-RCB Document 13 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2