Smith v. McDowell

Opinion

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

9 Michelet Michael Smith, No. CV-25-01441-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 David McDowell, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 56) of this Court’s Order 16 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 54, Order). Motions for reconsideration 17 should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. 18 Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the 19 district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error 20 or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 21 controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 22 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 23 reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 24 1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 25 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 26 litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor 27 may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in 28 1 opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 2 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 3 As Plaintiff presents no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in 4 controlling law, the Court construes his motion as one based on the assertion that the Court 5 has committed a clear error in dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff argues that 6 the Court misapplied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, erred in relying on the Second 7 Amended Complaint to dismiss all claims, and failed to rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 8 to File Surreply (Doc. 49) and Defendants’ Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Motion to 9 Dismiss (Doc. 40). (Doc. 56 at 1–3.) 10 The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s Motion. First, Plaintiff raises no argument 11 here not already fully raised in Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 12 (Doc. 45), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply, and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support 13 of Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 53). In considering those fully briefed 14 arguments, the Court reached its Order and finds no clear error in doing so. 15 Second, the Court committed no clear error in considering Plaintiff’s Second 16 Amended Complaint and voluntarily dismissed state law claims in dismissing Plaintiff’s 17 First Amended Complaint. The Court found that the full universe of claims brought by 18 Plaintiff, even those that were voluntarily dismissed or improperly added later, would 19 suffer the same defects—namely, that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 20 claims and the claims were barred under judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Because 21 such defects would persist even through an amendment, the Court dismissed this matter 22 with prejudice. 23 Third, the Court reached its Order without considering the pages in Defendant’s 24 Motion to Dismiss that exceeded the seventeenth page. It said as much in its prior Order. 25 There was no clear error in denying Defendant’s Motion to Exceed Page Limits (Doc. 40) 26 as moot. 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 56.) 2 Dated this 30th day of September, 2025. CN i. 4 Unifgd StatesDistrict Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-