Ware v. Phoenix, City of

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided April 20, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-02896·Unknown

Opinion

1 WO JL 2 3 4 5 8 9 Travis L. Ware, No. CV 19-02896-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Travis L. Ware, who was then confined in the Arizona 16 State Prison Complex-Douglas and is now confined in the Southeast Correctional Center 17 in Charleston, Missouri, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a May 8, 2019 Order, the Court 19 denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and 20 administrative fees for this action or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma 21 Pauperis. Plaintiff subsequently filed two more deficient Applications to Proceed In Forma 22 Pauperis, which the Court denied with leave to re-file on June 6, 2019, and July 2, 2019, 23 respectively. 24 On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed his fourth Application to Proceed In Forma 25 Pauperis. In an October 8, 2019 Order, the Court granted the Application to Proceed and 26 dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. 27 The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured the deficiencies 28 identified in the Order. 1 On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Reconsider/Extension of Time.” 2 On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion of Discovery Exculpatory Evidence.” In 3 a December 23, 2019 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery. The Court 4 granted the “Motion to Reconsider/Extension of Time” in part and gave Plaintiff an 5 additional 60 days to file an amended complaint in compliance with the October 8, 2019 6 Order and denied the Motion in all other respects. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff 7 that if he failed to file an amended complaint within 60 days, this case would be dismissed 8 without further notice to him. 9 On March 11, 2020, having received no amended complaint or motion for extension 10 of time, the Clerk of Court dismissed this action with prejudice and entered Judgment. The 11 same day, the Court received Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, which he had signed 12 on March 2, 2020. In a March 16, 2020 Order, the Court deemed the First Amended 13 Complaint to have been timely filed, directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the March 11, 14 2020 Judgment and reopen this case, and dismissed the First Amended Complaint and this 15 action. 16 On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to File for Leave to Amend and Lodge 17 (Submit) a Proposed Amended Complaint” (Doc. 28). The Court construes the Motion as 18 a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 16, 2020 Order. 19 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 20 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 21 reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly 22 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 23 or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 24 County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be 25 used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought 26 through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above 27 the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion 28 for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 1 time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 2 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for 3 reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a 4 motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 5 Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 6 reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 7 1988). 8 In his Motion, Plaintiff requests adequate time to “research the material” and to be 9 granted 120 days to file a proposed second amended complaint. Plaintiff asserts that he 10 has limited access to the facility’s library and his only option is to rely on his family to 11 “enable [his] efforts in accomplishing [his] task.” Plaintiff states the facility has refused 12 further assistance and although he submitted “some legal request[s],” he was “denied 13 access.” Plaintiff asserts that he requested information nearly two weeks ago but has not 14 received a response to his request and is therefore reluctant to believe that he can rely on 15 the facility’s assistance. Plaintiff also requests a file-stamped copy of the First Amended 16 Complaint. 17 Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence, shown that the Court 18 committed clear error in dismissing the First Amendment Complaint, or identified an 19 intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Court’s dismissal 20 of the First Amended Complaint and asks the Court to “rethink what the [C]ourt had 21 already thought through.” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351. 22 The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the March 16, 2020 Order, 23 and Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. Thus, the Court 24 will deny Plaintiff’s “Motion to File for Leave to Amend and Lodge (Submit) a Proposed 25 Amended Complaint.” 26 The Court notes that because the First Amended Complaint was dismissed without 27 prejudice, Plaintiff may reassert his claims by filing a complaint in a new case and either 28 paying the filing and administrative fees or filing an Application to Proceed In Forma 1 Pauperis. Plaintiff may not file another complaint or amended complaint in this case. 2 Asacourtesy, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the First Amended Complaint and the current court-approved forms for filing a civil rights 4} Complaint by a prisoner and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 5 ITIS ORDERED: 6 (1) ‘Plaintiff's “Motion to File for Leave to Amend and Lodge (Submit) a Proposed Amended Complaint” (Doc. 28) is construed as a motion for reconsideration of 8 the March 16, 2020 Order. So construed, the Motion is denied. 9 (2) This case must remain closed. 10 (3) The Clerk of Court must mail to Plaintiff a copy of the First Amended 11 Complaint (Doc. 23), a court-approved form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner, 12 and acourt-approved form for filing an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non- 13 Habeas). 14 Dated this 20th day of April, 2020. 15 Wicked T. diburde Michael T. Liburdi 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Instructions for a Prisoner Filing a Civil Rights Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona

1. Who May Use This Form. The civil rights complaint form is designed to help incarcerated persons prepare a complaint seeking relief for a violation of their federal civil rights. These complaints typically concern, but are not limited to, conditions of confinement. This form should not be used to challenge your conviction or sentence. If you want to challenge a state conviction or sentence, you should file a petition under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody. If you want to challenge a federal conviction or sentence, you should file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate sentence in the federal court that entered the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ware v. Phoenix, City of, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Ware v. Phoenix, City of (Ware v. Phoenix, City of) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner
909 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Arizona, 1995)
Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
689 F. Supp. 1572 (D. Hawaii, 1988)
Above Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.
99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Virginia, 1983)