Verduzco v. Mulligan

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Susana E. Verduzco, No. CV-19-04745-PHX-DWL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Kimberly A Mulligan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 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.”

23 (Id.) 24 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 4|| of the employee’s conduct” under Arizona law).

5 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc.

6|| 24) is denied.

7 Dated this 15th day of October, 2019.

9 La 11 United States District Judge _2-