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 Before the Court is Plaintiff's M otion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 40] of the Court's Order dismissing Count One of Plaintiff's Complaint [Dkt. 35]. The Court dismissed Count One of Plaintiff's Complaint becaus e the statute of limitations expired before Plaintiff filed the Complaint. "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law ." 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff urges the Court to reconsider t he dis missal of Count One because the incarceration in the Special M anagement Section (SM U II) he is challenging began on July 16, 2002. [Dkt. 40, p. 2]. The Court not iced this fact in its Order [Dkt. 35, p. 5], but found Plaintiff was aware of the injury charged in Count One in August of 1998, six months after he was first sent to SM U II. Plaintiff has not presented new evidence. vs. Charles Ryan, et. al., Defendants. Lorenzo Cruz Falco, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 03-1940-PHX-EHC (JI) ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:03-cv-01940-EHC-JRI

Document 65

Filed 10/17/2005

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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's M otion to Reconsider is DENIED. [Dkt. 40]. DATED this 14th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-01940-EHC-JRI

-2Document 65 Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 2