Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 State of Arizona, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02150-SRB-MEA Document 165 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin M. Roy, Plaintiff, vs.

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

No. CV03-2150-PHX-SRB ORDER

The Court has received and considered Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Judgment which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration of the order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 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. The Plaintiff's remaining arguments merely reiterate the legal arguments set forth in his response. The Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of arguments that were already raised. Backlund, 778 F.2d at 1388. Motions for reconsideration can not be used to ask the Court "to rethink what the court has already thought through," merely because a 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 under Rule 59(e). 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 the Plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient grounds to cause the Court to reconsider its January 18, 2007 order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Judgment. (doc. 164).

DATED this 5th day of February, 2007.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02150-SRB-MEA Document 165 Filed 02/06/2007 Page 2 of 2