Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 James A. Mills, N0. CV 03-2444-PHX—ROS
10 Plaintiff, i ORDER
1 1 vs.
12 . . .
13 Eigyll céfgfrigoenrx and the Phoenix
1 4 Defendants.
15
16
Pending are Plaintiffs Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #40) of this Courfs Order
17 Granting Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #36), Plaintiffs Motion For
ig Permission To Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #43) and Plaintiffs Motion For Waiver of
20 Transcript Fees (Doc. #46). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs Motions are denied.
21 I. Underlying Order For Summary Judgment
22 In granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, the Court held that Plaintiffs
claims were time barred pursuant to the two year statute of limitation period set forth in
ij; A.R.S. § 12-542. E Order Granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment p. 6-7.
The Court determined that the substantive basis of Plaintiffs claims was the denial of a trial
25 on his traffic citations, which occurred on December 19, 1996, when Plaintiff failed to appear
ii for his court date and judgment was entered against him. The statute of limitations begins
28 to run at the time a party knows or should reasonably have known about his injury. The
ase 2:03-cv-02444-ROS Document 49 Filed O2/O2/2006 Page 1 of 4

1 Court characterized this as the time a reasonable person would have known about the denial
2 of a trial, which is not March 2000 when the Motor Vehicle Department informed Plaintiff
3 of the warrant for his arrest. Rather, the Court found that a reasonable person should have
4 been aware sometime in 1997, after he had received no response from the traffic court
5 concerning his trial request. Applying the two year statute of limitations, the claims should
6 have been brought sometime in 1999. As a result, the Court held that Plaintiffs claims, which
7 were filed on December 11, 2003, were time barred. Sep Q
8 II. Motion For Reconsideration
9 A. Legal Standard
10 The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its orders. Sep Barber v. Hawaii, 42
ll F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri~Co1ogy, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th
12 Cir. 1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for
13 parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Se; Northwest Acceptance
14 Cogp. v. Lyppwood Eguip.,1nc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to
15 ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. Sc-; United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.
16 Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). "A Rule 59(e) motion is a proper vehicle for seeking
17 reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling." Tripati v. Henman, 845 F .2d 205, 206 (9"'
18 Cir. 1988).
19 A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment on four grounds: (1) to correct
20 "'manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based"'; (2) where the movant
21 presents '"newly-discovered or previously unavailable evidence"'; (3) '"to prevent manifest
22 injustice"'; or (4) where there has been an '"intewening change in controlling law."' T
23 v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9"' Cir. 2003)}
24
25 ' Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed
26 no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. The Court's Order Granting Defendants
27 Motion For Summary Judgment was issued on July 26, 2005. Plaintiff filed the underlying
Motion on August 8, 2005. Pursuant to Rule 6, when the time allowed 1S less than 1 1 days,
28 weekends shall be excluded in the computation. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
- 2 -
ase 2:03-cv-02444-ROS Document 49 Filed O2/O2/2006 Page 2 of 4

1 B. Analysis
2 Plaintiff contends that the Court committed legal error, because the civil rights violation
3 occurred on March 14, 2000 and not on December 19, 1996. Although Plaintiff does not
4 articulate such, the Court presumes that Plaintiff argues that based on the March 14, 2000
5 date, his claims were within the statute of limitations period. Even if Plaintiff was correct,
6 the claims would still be time barred. This is true even if the Court provided a six-month
7 allowance to account for Plaintiffs first action that was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
8 5;:; Order Granting Defendanfs Motion To Dismiss p. 6; Jepson v. New, 164 Ariz. 265, 274,
9 792 P.2d 728, 737 (Ariz. 1990) ("Where an action is terminated for lack of prosecution, relief
10 under the savings statute should only be granted where the plaintiff demonstrates that despite
ll diligent pursuit of the case, it was dismissed").
12 Plaintiffs argument is meritless, however. The substantive basis for his claims involve
13 the unconstitutional denial of a trial regarding his 1996 traffic complaint, and not three years
14 later when he went to court to settle the outstanding fines. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden
15 under Rule 59(e). As a result, his Motion will be denied.
16 III. Motion For Permission To Appeal ln Forma Pauperis and Motion For
17 Waiver of Transcript Fees
18 Title 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(a) states that any Court of the United States may authorize the
19 commencement, prosecution, or defense of any civil or criminal action without prepayment
20 of fees and costs or security therefor "by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to
21 pay such costs or security therefor." After reviewing the financial statement submitted by
22 Plaintiff, the Court has determined that he is unable to pay the filing fees associated with his
23 appeal. However, section (a)(3) provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis
24 if the trial court finds that it is not taken in good faith.
25
26
27 _...t.............
28 Motion was timely filed.
- 3 -
ase 2:03-cv-02444-ROS Document 49 Filed O2/O2/2006 Page 3 of 4

l As previously stated, Plaintiffs claims are time barred, and Plaintiff fails to provide any
2 evidence that would save his claims. As a result, there is no arguable basis in fact or law to
3 warrant an appeal in good faith, For this reason, Plaintiffs motions will be denied.
4
5 Accordingly,
6 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. # 40) is DENIED.
7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To Appeal In Fonna
8 Pauperis (Doc. #43) and Motion For Waiver of Transcript Fees (Doc. #46) are DENIED.
9
10 DATED this_§_i day of January, 2006.
ll fr ‘‘l` pl
12 1* `
13 ’ - s i i
14 United States District Judge
l 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 -
ase 2:03-cv-02444-ROS Document 49 Filed O2/O2/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02444-ROS

Document 49

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02444-ROS

Document 49

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02444-ROS

Document 49

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-02444-ROS

Document 49

Filed 02/02/2006

Page 4 of 4