Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00953/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00953-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ralph G. Duran, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Board of 

Supervisors, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0953-PHX-SRB (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgement/Order

and Motion for Extension of Time" (Doc. #33). Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of the

court's order (Doc. #26) granting Defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's summary judgment

motion and the order (Doc. #31) denying his request for more time to respond to the motion

to strike.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration because he claims the prison mail system delayed his

motion requesting more time to respond to the motion to strike. He argues that if the court

had received it in time, the court would have granted it and would not have granted the

motion to strike his summary judgment motion. However, other than claiming that the court

would have given him more time to respond had it received his motion for an extension,

Plaintiff offers no basis to find that the court's decision on the merits of the motion to strike

was wrong. As the court explained in its order granting the motion to strike, Plaintiff's

summary judgment motion failed to comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the

Case 2:05-cv-00953-SRB-ECV Document 37 Filed 03/28/06 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 -

District of Arizona in that it contained no separate statement of facts. Doc. #26. In addition,

it was combined with Plaintiff's response to a motion to dismiss rather than filed as a separate

motion. The instant motion presents nothing to show that the court committed clear error or

that any other basis for reconsideration exists. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (“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.”). Nor has Plaintiff presented any basis for relief from judgment or order

under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will

be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgement/Order and

Motion for Extension of Time" (Doc. #33) is denied.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

 

Case 2:05-cv-00953-SRB-ECV Document 37 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2