Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01163/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01163-3/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

WO M

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Stewart, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1163 PHX RCB (LOA)

O R D E R

On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff Thomas Stewart, Jr., who is confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Yuma, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a June 20, 2012 Order, the Court

granted the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had failed

to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured

the deficiencies identified in the Order. 

On July 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File First Amended

Complaint. On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11). In

a September 10, 2012 Order, the Court dismiss the First Amended Complaint and this action

for failure to state a claim. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion to

Alter and Amend the Judgment, and, an Extension of Time to File Such Motion” (Doc. 14).

On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment (Doc. 15). 

The Court will grant the September 24, 2012 Motion/Notice to the extent that the

Court will accept Plaintiff’s October 26th Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment as timely

Case 2:12-cv-01163-RCB--LOA Document 17 Filed 11/16/12 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 -

filed.

The failure to properly brief an issue does not warrant granting a motion to reconsider.

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz.

2003). “Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “The purpose of a motion

for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered

evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already

thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

1983)).

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, Order of dismissal, and

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision.

The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion (Notice) to Alter or Amend Judgment and Motion for

Extension of Time (Doc. 14) is granted in part to the extent that the Court will accept

Plaintiff’s October 26th Motion as timely filed; the Motion is denied with respect to all other

relief requested.

(2) Plaintiff’s October 26, 2012 Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment (Doc. 15)

is denied.

(3) The case must remain closed.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01163-RCB--LOA Document 17 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 2