Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01218/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01218-0/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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Troy D. LaPointe, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-CV-1218-PHX-FJM

ORDER

In our order filed June 14, 2005 (doc. 23), we granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

More than three months later, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Court to Reconsider and Correct

Judgment Order of June 14, 2005" (doc. 25), which we have before us.

This motion appears to be a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration

must be filed within 10 days of the filing of the order subject to the motion. LRCiv 7.2(g).

To the extent plaintiff's motion is a motion for reconsideration, it is untimely and is

accordingly denied.

The motion could also be interpreted as a Rule 60(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., motion for

relief from the order and judgment due to fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of

an adverse party. Plaintiff contends that defendants' motion to dismiss is "deceitful,"

"misleading," and that it "clearly perjures Defendants['] own witness." Plaintiff's Motion at

2-3. Following our order, in an apparent attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies,

plaintiff submitted three new grievances with regard to the issues underlying his complaint.

Case 2:04-cv-01218-FJM-GEE Document 27 Filed 05/08/06 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 -

CO III Focht responded to the grievances, stating (1) that the issues were raised in previous

grievances and (2) that plaintiff has an active lawsuit with regard to these issues. Plaintiff's

Motion, Attachment A. Plaintiff contends that Focht's response shows defendants' earlier

deceit. Plaintiff interprets Focht's statement as an admission that he exhausted his

administrative remedies, and therefore argues that it contradicts the defendants' earlier

arguments. We disagree. Focht's statement does not mean that plaintiff exhausted his

administrative remedies, but rather that plaintiff's complaint was addressed in an earlier

grievance. Moreover, while Focht was incorrect that the lawsuit was still active–judgment

had been issued the previous month–that is not evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other

misconduct by the defendants in this action. Therefore, to the extent plaintiff's motion is a

motion for relief from the earlier judgment and order, it is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion (doc. 25).

DATED this 5th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01218-FJM-GEE Document 27 Filed 05/08/06 Page 2 of 2