Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00072/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00072-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

Michael Verble, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

John S. Leonardo, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-0072-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Plaintiff Michael Verble has filed a motion for re-examination of petition (which 

the Court has construed as a motion for reconsideration). Doc. 6. 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. Such a motion is denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing 

of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention 

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 

934, 945 (9th Cir.2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at 

*2 (D.Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). 

 In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has presented no new facts or legal 

authority that would justify the Court’s reconsideration of its decision. Instead, Plaintiff 

argues only that the Court misinterpreted the in forma pauperis application. The Court 

will furnish Plaintiff with a copy of his in forma pauperis application with this order. 

 In its previous order (Doc. 5), the Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended 

complaint on or before February 21, 2014. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

Case 2:14-cv-00072-DGC Document 7 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

The Court will afford Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend his complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for re-examination of petition (Doc. 6) is denied. 

 2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before March 14, 2014. If 

Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by March 14, 2014, the clerk shall terminate 

this action without further order of the Court. 

 3. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of Doc. 2 (Application for Leave to 

Proceed In Forma Pauperis) to pro se Plaintiff. 

 Dated this 4th day of March, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00072-DGC Document 7 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 2