Outley v. Moir ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Dewayne Outley, Jr., No. CV-19-00019-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Sylvia Moir, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 112). The Court 16 now rules. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On January 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint (Doc. 1). On screening 19 the original Complaint, the Court dismissed several Defendants for failure to state a claim 20 against them. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), and on 21 screening, the Court found that Plaintiff adequately stated some of his alleged claims and 22 failed to state others. (Doc. 13). The Court then stayed the case on September 24, 2019, 23 (Doc. 23), and lifted the stay a year later, (Doc. 30). The remaining Defendants then 24 answered. (Doc. 32). 25 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend (Doc. 50) and lodged the Proposed Second 26 Amended Complaint (the “PSAC”) (Doc. 51). Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued a Report 27 and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Motion to Amend (Doc. 50) be 28 granted and the PSAC (Doc. 51) be filed. (Doc. 79). The R&R also recommended the Court 1 dismiss some of the claims in the PSAC. (Id.). Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed 2 objections to the R&R (Docs. 85, 87) and responses to the other parties’ objections (Docs. 3 89, 90). 4 On May 21, 2021, the Court ordered that the R&R was accepted as modified by the 5 Order and granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (Doc. 110). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s 6 claims in Count 1 on equal protection, policy violations, and, except as to Defendant 7 Gaughan, denial of medical care, claims in Count 2 on invasion of privacy against 8 Defendants other than Defendants Doe and Moir, and the claims on equal protection, 9 claims in Count 3 under the Fourteenth Amendment and those alleging defamation, and all 10 of Count 4. (Id.). 11 Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 112) arguing that 12 the Court erred when it dismissed the claims against Defendant Trow asserted in Count 2. 13 (Doc. 112). Because the Court has not ordered a response, under Arizona Local Rule of 14 Civil Procedure 7.2(g), Defendants may not respond. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 District of Arizona Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) governs motions for 17 reconsideration. It provides: 18 The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order 19 absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 20 reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the 21 matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first 22 time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific 23 modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made 24 by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the 25 Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of the motion. 26 27 LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Manifest error under LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) is “error that is plain and 28 indisputable . . . that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible 1 evidence in the record.” Estrada v. Bashas’ Inc., No. CV-02-00591-PHX-RCB, 2014 WL 2 1319189, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2014) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 3 2009)). 4 Further, mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 5 reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 6 1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 7 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 8 litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 9 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 10 circumstances.” Morgal v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Sup’rs, No. CIV 07-0670-PHX-RCB, 11 2012 WL 2368478, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 21, 2012). 12 III. ANALYSIS 13 In the Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff Argues that “the Court has improperly 14 granted qualified immunity to Defendant Trow” because clearly established law gives an 15 individual a right to privacy in juvenile criminal records for a sex offense. (Doc. 112). To 16 support this proposition, Plaintiff cites Doe v. Cty. of San Diego, 445 F. Supp. 3d 957, 967 17 (S.D. Cal. 2020). (Id. at 2). Doe v. Cty. of San Diego, however, is distinguishable from the 18 instant case because it involved the right to privacy a minor victim had in her information 19 collected by law enforcement while investigating the crime committed against her. Doe 20 v. Cty. of San Diego, 445 F. Supp. 3d at 960, 966–967. Here, the information at issue is not 21 that of a minor victim, but a juvenile criminal record which does not carry the same clearly 22 established privacy rights. See Rigsby v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 531 F. App’x 811, 812 (9th 23 Cir. 2013) (holding that there is no clearly established constitutional “right to privacy” for 24 juvenile records even when disclosed to third parties); Nunes v. Arata, Swingle, Van 25 Egmond & Goodwin (PLC), 983 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding no clearly 26 established constitutional right to privacy in juvenile records at time of defendant’s 27 conduct). 28 Plaintiff’s remaining arguments echo those made in his response to Defendants’ 1 || objections to the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 90 at 3-7). As such, they do not 2|| present this Court with new law or facts to consider, but simply convey Plaintiff’s || disagreement with the Court’s May 21, 2021 Order. Mere disagreement with a previous 4|| order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong, 689 F. Supp. at 1573 Further, 5|| the Court addressed Doe v. Cty. of San Diego in the order Plaintiff wishes to have 6 || reconsidered and found that it did not stand for the proposition that Plaintiff now asserts. 7\| (See Doc. 110 at 9). As such, Plaintiff has made no showing of manifest error, new facts, 8 || or legal authority to persuade this Court to grant his Motion for Reconsideration. IV. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 112) is DENIED. 13 Dated this 28th day of June, 2021. 14 15 A 16 James A. Teilborg 17 Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-