Pinson v. Othon ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 11 Jeremy Pinson, No. CV-20-00169-TUC-RM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Unknown Othon, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 76.) 18 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s November 9, 2020 Order denying her1 19 Motion for Order Concerning Access to the Court. (Doc. 68.) Plaintiff asserts that factual 20 circumstances “dramatically changed” between the time she filed the Motion for Order 21 Concerning Access to the Court (Doc. 49) and the subsequent Order (Doc. 68). 22 Specifically, Plaintiff points to, inter alia, (1) a recent lockdown following a positive 23 COVID-19 test in the United States Penitentiary-Tucson (“USP-Tucson”), which resulted 24 in postponement of her scheduled transfer to another facility, (2) the worsening COVID- 25 19 outbreak in USP-Tucson, and (3) the Defendants’ failure to keep the Court apprised of 26 the changing pandemic-related circumstances inside the prison. (Doc. 76.) Plaintiff 27 reasserts arguments regarding difficulties she faces as a pro se, incarcerated litigant and 28 1 Plaintiff is transgender and uses feminine pronouns. 1 her desire for the Court to address her concerns raised in this lawsuit pertaining to 2 conditions inside USP-Tucson in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. (Id.) 3 The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing 4 of new facts or legal authority that could not have been 5 brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the matters that 6 the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by 7 the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not 8 presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought 9 in the Court’s Order. LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 10 In the District of Arizona, motions for reconsideration will be granted when: 11 (1) There are material differences in fact or law from that 12 presented to the Court and, at the time of the Court's decision, 13 the party moving for reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal differences through reasonable diligence; 14 (2) There are new material facts that happened after the 15 Court’s decision; (3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or 16 enacted after the Court's decision; or 17 (4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the 18 Court before the Court's decision. 19 Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 20 2003). “Reconsideration is indicated in the face of the existence of new evidence, an 21 intervening change in the law, or as necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Navajo 22 Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 23 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). Whether to grant reconsideration is within the sound discretion of 24 the trial court. Id. 25 The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration demonstrates 26 “manifest error” or “new facts or legal authority” that could not have previously been 27 raised. Furthermore, no manifest injustice will result from denial of reconsideration. The 28 Court recognizes that pandemic-related conditions inside USP-Tucson are constantly || evolving and require the Court’s attention. The Court’s December 1, 2020 Order sets an 2|| evidentiary hearing? on Plaintiff's pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 3 || requires Defendants to file an update on their compliance with Center for Disease Control (‘CDC’) guidelines on management of the COVID-19 pandemic. (See Doc. 88.) Thus, 5|| the December 1, 2020 Order addresses Plaintiff's concerns regarding her access to the || Court. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 76) is denied. 9 Dated this 8th day of December, 2020. 10 1 12 a, 13 TD 4 tigi Z □□ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 14 United States District □□□□□ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ? The hearing is set for December 17, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. -3-