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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry Northcross Patterson, Plaintiff, vs. CO Maciel, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-03-2179-PHX-PGR ORDER

The Court entered its order (doc. #45) granting the defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissing this action on March 31, 2006, and it entered its judgment of dismissal (doc. #46) on April 3, 2006. On April 18, 2006, the plaintiff filed both a Motion to Reconsider (doc. #47) and a Notice of Appeal (doc. #48). Having considered the Motion to Reconsider1, which the Court construes as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)2, American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Construction Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001), the Court finds that the motion should be denied because the motion is in effect a rehash of arguments already raised
The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Reconsider notwithstanding the simultaneous filing of the Notice of Appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).
2 1

Although the Motion to Reconsider was filed on April 18, 2006, the motion is dated as being signed on April 17, 2006 and the Court considers that date to be the filing date under the mail box rule for purposes of considering the timeliness of the motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 59(e) and 6(a).

Case 2:03-cv-02179-PGR-VAM

Document 52

Filed 05/18/2006

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

by the plaintiff and rejected by the Court; the motion does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence, establish that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, or persuade the Court that its order of dismissal was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust as a matter of law. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (doc. #47) is denied. DATED this 17th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02179-PGR-VAM

-2Document 52 Filed 05/18/2006

Page 2 of 2