Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01157/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01157-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Anderson
Defendant
Bullhead City Police Department
Defendant
David William Linder
Plaintiff

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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed the Bullhead City Police Department as a

Defendant (Doc. #14).

2

Although Document #57 is entered on the docket as a “Motion to Amend/Correct,”

it is, like Document #54, titled “Motion for Leave to Amend.” 

JDN

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David William Linder, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Bullhead City Police Dep’t, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1157-PHX-DGC 

ORDER

Plaintiff David William Linder brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Bullhead City Police Officer Richard Anderson (Doc. #10).1

 On September 4, 2008,

the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. ##29, 50).

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s two Motions for Leave to Amend (Doc. #54, 57)2

 and

a Motion for Reconsideration and/or in the Alternative Notice of Appeal (Doc. #58).

Plaintiff’s first two motions are identical (Doc. ##54, 57). Although these motions’

titles refer to leave to amend, Plaintiff only expresses his dissatisfaction with the Court’s

Summary Judgment Order. The motions will therefore be construed as a request for

reconsideration. 

Case 2:06-cv-01157-DGC Document 60 Filed 10/27/08 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 -

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision,

or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g.,

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See

Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 

Plaintiff presents no grounds for reconsideration; thus, both motions will be denied.

Because the Court construed the first two filings as a request for reconsideration, it will

construe the most recent filing solely as a Notice of Appeal of the Summary Judgment Order

(Doc. #58). 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to Amend (Doc. ##54, 57) are construed as requests

for reconsideration and are denied.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or in the Alternative Notice of Appeal

(Doc. #58) is construed as a Notice of Appeal.

(3) The Clerk of Court must designate Document #58 as a Notice of Appeal and

proceed accordingly. 

DATED this 24th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01157-DGC Document 60 Filed 10/27/08 Page 2 of 2