Verduzco v. Mulligan

Opinion

WO

Susana E. Verduzco, No. CV-19-04745-PHX-DWL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Kimberly A Mulligan, et al.,

Defendants. On September 24, 2019, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint—which, in a nutshell, asserted a medical malpractice claim against a doctor employed by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”)—due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 22.) In response, Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 24.) Although the motion is not a model of clarity, Plaintiff appears to be arguing that reconsideration is warranted because, among other things, (1) a VA doctor in Arkansas was recently charged with federal crimes in an unrelated lawsuit, (2) “President Trump’s impeach inquiry . . . support[s] . . . this motion.” (Id.) The motion for reconsideration will be denied. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available only in “highly unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 1] Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). No such extraordinary circumstances are present here. Cf; MacDonald v. Chaney, 2007 WL 274313, *2 (D. Ariz. 2007) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that “committing malpractice is not within the scope of the employee’s conduct” under Arizona law). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 24) is denied. Dated this 15th day of October, 2019. La

United States District Judge

_2-