Hernandez v. Ryan

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

9 Fredy J Hernandez, No. CV-19-04885-PHX-JJT (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion of Expert Witness Appointment Pursuant to Rule 706(a) Fed. R. Evid—Plaintiff Requested Early—” (Doc. 81).

18 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 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, Multonomah County, 5 F.3d at 1263; see also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“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.”). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “to rethink what the court had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1 Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 81) does not present any basis that warrants reconsideration of the Court’s Order (Doc. 75) and will be denied.

3 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's “Reconsideration of Plaintiff's Motion of 4|| Expert Witness Appointment Pursuant to Rule 706(a) Fed. R. Evid—Plaintiff Requested || Early—” (Doc. 81).

6 Dated this 15th day of May, 2020. ? Honorable Eileen S. Willett 10 United States Magistrate Judge -2-