Opinion
No. CV 11-2554-PHX-RCB
04-10-2013
James Jackson Ellsworth, Plaintiff, v. Dennis Kendall, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Currently pending before the court is a "Motion for Reconsideration to [sic] District Court Judge of Magistrate Judge's Order[]" filed by plaintiff pro se, James Jackson Ellsworth, on January 9, 2013 (Doc. 23). Because this court did not order the filing of a response to the reconsideration motion, defendants did not file one. See LRCiv 7.2(g) ("No response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the Court[.]") As explained below, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion as moot.
On December 18, 2012, three days prior to the scheduling order's December 21, 2012, time frame for filing dispositive motions, the defendants filed a motion for extension of time in which to file such motions. The defendants sought that extension because defendant Kendall was on medical leave at the time and "numerous Arizona Department of Corrections" employees and Defendants' counsel" were going to be out of the office or temporarily unavailable "due to the holiday season[.]" Mot. (Doc. 21) at 1:22-24. On December 26, 2012, the Magistrate Judge granted that motion, allowing the parties "until January 22, 2013, to file dispositive motions[.]" Ord. (Doc. 22) at 1:15-16.
In Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 2013 WL 1149937 (D.Ariz. March 20, 2013) ("Ellsworth I"), another of plaintiff Ellsworth's pending lawsuits, this court detailed his non-compliance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), which governs reconsideration motions. See id. at *1 - *2. As in Ellsworth I, in this action plaintiff also has not made the requisite showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority so as to warrant relief under that Rule. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (emphasis added) ("The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.")
Even overlooking plaintiff Ellsworth's non-compliance with LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), still, he is not entitled to reconsideration because, essentially, his motion has become moot. The plaintiff advances several reasons as to why he is entitled to reconsideration. At this juncture, the only one worth noting is plaintiff's claim that he has been prejudiced due to defendants' extension of time. In asserting prejudice, plaintiff indicated that he would "be forced to request an extension to file his response to defendants['] motion for summary judgment." Mot. (Doc. 23) at 7. Significantly, however, on February 25, 2013, the Magistrate Judge granted plaintiff's motion for an extension of time in which to file a response to defendants' summary judgment motion. Although plaintiff requested an extension until March 31, 2013, Mot. (Doc. 29) at 2-3, the Magistrate Judge extended plaintiff's filing time frame until April 5, 2013. Ord. (Doc. 32) at 1:15-17. In light of the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff's motion is moot. Cf. Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[I]f events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute, [the court] must dismiss the case as moot[.]")
Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:
(1) the "Motion for Reconsideration to [sic] District Court Judge of Magistrate Judge's Order[]" (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
_____________________________
Robert C. Broomfield
Senior United States District Judge
Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se James Jackson Ellsworth