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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 La Paz County, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 246 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James W. Filed, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV03-2214-PHX-SRB ORDER

The Court has received and considered Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of dismissal of Defendants APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson. Reconsideration is only appropriate if: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered, previously unavailable evidence; (2) the court committed a clear error of law and the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993);United States ex rel Conveyor Rental & Sales Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 1991 WL 495733, *1 (D. Ariz. 1991). Such a motion, however, may not be used to re-litigate old matters or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. See, e.g., Fed. Deposit Ins. Agency v. World Univ., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992); accord Backlund, 778 F.2d at 1388; 1 Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1 at 127-28.

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 Plaintiff does not allege that the controlling law has changed since this Court rendered its initial decision. Rather, he argues that the Court erred in its interpretation of both the law and the facts of this case. Motions for reconsideration can not be used to ask the Court "to rethink what the court has already thought through," merely because Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's decision. Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983); See Refrigeration Sales Co. 605 F.Supp. at 8. Such disagreements should be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reconsideration. Database Am., Inc. 825 F.Supp. at 1220; Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc. 605 F.Supp. at 7. This case does not fall within one of those narrow instances where reconsideration is appropriate. The moving party must show more than a disagreement with the court's decision; the court should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless there is need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Database Am., Inc. 825 F.Supp. at 1220; Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc., 605 F.Supp. at 7. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient grounds to cause the Court to reconsider its order dismissing Defendants APS, Doug McDonald and Donald Wilson.. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (doc. 243).

DATED this 6th day of July, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 246 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 2 of 2