Opinion
No. CV 11-1856-PHX-GMS (DKD)
03-13-2013
George Wilson Overturf, Plaintiff, v. Janice K. Brewer, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff George Wilson Overturf, who was confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex, Central Unit, in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 1, 7.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which the Court also dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff requested and was granted several extensions of time to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 38.) On November 26, 2012, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim and dismissed this action. (Doc. 43.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff filed a post-judgment motion for leave to amend seeking additional opportunities to file an amended complaint in which to attempt to state a claim. (Doc. 45.) In an Order filed on December 4, 2012, the Court denied that motion. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 47.) That motion will be denied.
On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address reflecting that he is currently held in Maricopa County's Fourth Avenue Jail. (Doc. 48.)
Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court "to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly." Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992).
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration for various reasons and his disagreement with the Court's conclusions. Plaintiff disagrees with two footnotes concerning prescription labels. He contends that the Court erred in dismissing claims against Chavez based on failure to comply with prison regulations. Plaintiff also asserts that he did not receive certain prescriptions on various dates. In addition, he asserts that malfeasance by Romero, French, and Swindle could be proven with discovery. Plaintiff also apparently disagrees with the Court's attempt to address Plaintiff's allegations chronologically. He otherwise complains about various points and submits new exhibits. Plaintiff has not pointed to newly-discovered evidence, nor has he demonstrated that the Court committed clear error or an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff asks the Court to rethink what it has already thought through. That is not a basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Malfeasance, absent more, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
--------
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. (Doc. 47.)
______________________
G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge