Patterson v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-00191
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO KM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Eugene P. Patterson, No. CV-24-00191-TUC-SHR 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States of America, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 Pending before the Court are self-represented Plaintiff Eugene P. Patterson's Motion 16 for Objections (Doc. 18) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 19). The Court will 17 construe the Motion for Objections as a motion for reconsideration, deny the Motion, and 18 deny as moot the Motion to Appoint Counsel. 19 I. Background 20 Plaintiff filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. 21 Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The 22 Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file an Application 23 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time, which the 24 Court granted and, in so doing, again explained the filing fee or in forma pauperis 25 requirements. Plaintiff then filed another Motion for Extension of Time, a Motion to 26 Appoint Counsel, a deficient Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, a Motion for 27 Leave to File an Amended Complaint, and a "Motion for Objections." In an August 9, 28 2024 Order, the Court granted the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint; denied 1 the deficient Application to Proceed and other Motions; and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay 2 the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma 3 Pauperis and certified six-month trust account statement. 4 On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Objections" and another deficient 5 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a January 14, 2025 Order, the Court denied 6 the Motion for Objections, denied the deficient Application to Proceed, and dismissed this 7 action without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court Order. On February 7, 2025, 8 Plaintiff filed his Motion for Objections and Motion to Appoint Counsel. 9 II. Motions 10 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 11 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 12 reconsideration is appropriate where the district court "(1) is presented with newly 13 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 14 or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 15 County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be 16 used for the purpose of asking a court "'to rethink what the court had already thought 17 through – rightly or wrongly.'" Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above 18 the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion 19 for reconsideration "may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 20 time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Kona Enters., 21 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for 22 reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a 23 motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 24 Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 25 reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 26 1988). 27 Although unclear, Plaintiff appears to assert the Court "made a mistake" because it 28 did not contact the Federal Bureau of Prisons for Plaintiff's financial information. As the Court explained in its previous orders, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to obtain this information and provide it to the Court. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision to dismiss this case. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Objections and will 4 deny as moot Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. 5 IT IS ORDERED: 6 (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Objections (Doc. 18) is construed as a motion for reconsideration. So construed, the Motion is denied. 8 (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 19) is denied as moot. 9 (3) This case must remain closed. 10 11 Dated this 16th day of June, 2025. 12 13 /} i Fath el 15 Honorable Scott H. Rash _/ United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28