Stewart v. Arizona, State of ( 2023 )

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Thomas Stewart, Jr., No. CV 22-00712-PHX-JAT (DMF) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 State of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion re erratum” (Doc. 17) and 16 “Objection” to the Court’s Order of dismissal (Doc. 18). The Court will deny the Motion 17 and Objection. 18 I. Background 19 On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff Thomas Stewart, Jr., who is not confined and is 20 proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 § 1983. In a May 11, 2022 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint because Plaintiff had 22 failed to state a claim. After receiving multiple extensions of time, Plaintiff filed his First 23 Amended Complaint on December 29, 2022. In a January 25, 2023 Order, the Court 24 dismissed the First Amendment Complaint and this action for failure to state a claim. 25 Judgment was entered the same day. 26 On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed the “Motion re erratum,” and on February 6, 27 2023, he filed his “Objection” and a Notice of Appeal. 28 . . . . 1 II. “Motion re erratum” 2 In his “Motion re erratum,” Plaintiff asks to add to his First Amendment Complaint 3 allegations that Maricopa County employees were acting pursuant to practice or custom of 4 Maricopa County. Plaintiff does not describe the practice or custom at issue and the 5 addition of this allegation would not alter the Court’s decision to dismiss this case. 6 Accordingly, the Court will deny the “Motion re Erratum.” 7 III. Objection 8 In his “Objection,” Plaintiff asserts the Court’s Order of dismissal “is simply 9 wrong,” and appears to seek reconsideration of dismissal. Plaintiff claims “CASS” is the 10 acronym for Central Arizona Shelter Services1 and “Arizona must be held responsible for 11 its constituents.” Plaintiff also reasserts that in light of his medical issues, he was 12 wrongfully denied “Project 8” housing and employment. 13 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 14 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 15 reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly 16 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 17 or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 18 County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be 19 used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought 20 through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above 21 the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion 22 for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 23 time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 24 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for 25 reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a 26 motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 27 28 1 Central Arizona Shelter Services is a private non-profit organization, not a state entity. See https://www.cassaz.org/about-us/ (last accessed Mar. 28, 2023.) 1| Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 2| reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 3| 1988). 4 The Court has reviewed the First Amendment Complaint, Order of dismissal, and Plaintiffs “Objection.” The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. Accordingly, the Court will deny the “Objection.” 7| ITIS ORDERED: 8 (1) ‘Plaintiffs “Motion re erratum” (Doc. 17) is denied. 9 (2) Plaintiffs “Objection” (Doc. 18) is denied. 10 (3) | The Clerk of Court must send a copy of this order the Ninth Circuit Court of 11 | Appeals and indicate this Order relates to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case number 23-15173. 13 Dated this 6th day of April, 2023. 14 15 a 16 7 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28