Hernandez v. Ryan

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 15, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04885
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Fredy J Hernandez, No. CV-19-04885-PHX-JJT (ESW)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion of 16 Expert Witness Appointment Pursuant to Rule 706(a) Fed. R. Evid—Plaintiff Requested 17 Early—” (Doc. 81). 18 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See 19 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if 20 the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error 21 or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 22 controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multonomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263; see also LRCiv 23 7.2(g)(1) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent 24 a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have 25 been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”). Such motions should not 26 be used for the purpose of asking a court “to rethink what the court had already thought 27 through – rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp 1342, 1351 28 (D. Ariz. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 81) does not present any basis that warrants reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 75) and will be denied. 3 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's “Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motion of 4|| Expert Witness Appointment Pursuant to Rule 706(a) Fed. R. Evid—Plaintiff Requested || Early—” (Doc. 81). 6 Dated this 15th day of May, 2020. 7

? Honorable Eileen S. Willett 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-