Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00319/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wendy Traver
Plaintiff
Tucson Unified School District
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Wendy Traver, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Tucson Unified School District, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-319-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff urges the

Court to reconsider its previous order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)

The relevant standard for reconsideration comes from Rule 60(b), which "provides for

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment;

or (6) 'extraordinary circumstances' which would justify relief." Id. at 1263. A motion for

reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to "rethink what the court had already

thought through-rightly or wrongly." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should

be directed to the court of appeals. Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605

F.Supp. 6, 7 (N.D.Ill. 1983). 

Case 4:05-cv-00319-CKJ Document 23 Filed 11/03/05 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 -

After a review of the relevant facts and law as well as Plaintiff's motion, the Court, in its

discretion, declines to reconsider the previous ruling. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of November, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-00319-CKJ Document 23 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2