Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02247/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02247-1/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

1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this case.

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Paul Norris, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2247-PHX-DGC (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Paul Norris, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex,

SMU I, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Complaint raising constitutional and other claims

without paying the $350.00 civil action filing fee or a proper Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis. (Doc.# 1 at 2.)1

 In an Order filed on March 18, 2008, the Court dismissed

the Complaint with prejudice except to the extent that Plaintiff alleged a claim for false

imprisonment, which was dismissed without prejudice. (Doc.# 13.) Plaintiff has filed a

motion for reconsideration. (Doc.# 16.)

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the 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, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

Case 2:07-cv-02247-DGC--LOA Document 17 Filed 03/31/08 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 -

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be

directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309

(D. Ariz. 1992).

Plaintiff asserts that the Court clearly erred based upon Plaintiff’s construction of

various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.# 16.) Plaintiff essentially asks the Court

to rethink what it has already through. That is not a basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s

motion will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc.# 16.)

DATED this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02247-DGC--LOA Document 17 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2