Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01831/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01831-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Saul Coven, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 07-01831 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

United States Office of )

Personnel Management, )

)

Defendant. ) )

On June 5, 2008, this court entered an order staying this

action for ninety (90) days. Doc. 24. Thereafter, plaintiff

“request[ed]” that the court “stay” that previously granted motion

to dismiss and that the court also “reverse[]” that stay order. 

Doc. 26 at 1:16-17. By order dated and entered July 17, 2008, the

court denied plaintiff that requested relief. See Doc. 28.

On July 21, 2008, plaintiff filed what he styled a “Second

Petition to Dismiss Motion to Stay and Reverse Order to Stay[,]”

seeking “reconsideration” of the July 17, 2008 order. Doc. 29 at

1:12-13; and 17. Plaintiff acknowledges that he had “constructive 

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 30 Filed 08/04/08 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

1 That Rule expressly provides that “[f]ailure to comply with th[at]

subsection may be grounds for denial of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

- 2 -

notice” of the defendant’s original stay motion, but now claims

that he did not have “actual notice” and so could not timely

respond. Id. at 1:22-23. 

The circumstances under which reconsideration is appropriate

are fairly circumscribed under LRCiv 7.2(g). That Rule provides

that “ordinarily” a court will “deny a motion for reconsideration

of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 

Plaintiff’s petition seeking reconsideration does not satisfy that

standard. Therefore, as LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) permits1 the court hereby

DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 29) in its

entirety.

IT IS ORDERED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

Case 2:07-cv-01831-RCB Document 30 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2