Hobbs v. Santiago

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

9 Richard Paul Hobbs, No. CV-20-00787-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Michael Santiago, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration and Other Motions.” (Doc. 14). The Court now rules on the motion.

17 In a prior order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 12 at 8). Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff had (1) improperly made religious discrimination claims against nonstate actors, (2) asserted claims that were not cognizable under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and (3) made merely frivolous claims of medical malpractice. (Id. at 3–8). Consequently, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court dismissed the complaint before requiring the named defendants to answer.

23 Plaintiff’s has since filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the following items: 24 1. Direct the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants named in his previously 25 dismissed complaint.

26 2. Provide him with the names of the attorneys who would represent those defendants.

27 3. Provide him with a copy of the “Rules of Civil Procedure for this Court.”

28 4. Have someone explain to him “the ‘special’ Rules of Procedure that [he] received 1 an email about which [he] can[]not comprehend.”

2 5. To apply the Rules of Civil Procedure liberally in his favor.

3 6. To “reconsider this case” because he “do[es] not understand . . . why the case can 4 be dismissed with prejudice pre-maturely. Due Process not had here.” (Doc. 14 at 5 14).

6 Motions for reconsideration are governed by LRCiv 7.2(g), which provides in pertinent part that: 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 9 authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the 11 Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for 13 reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of 15 the motion.

16 LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (emphases added). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to ask the Court to simply rethink an earlier decision, arguments expressing disagreement or dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning should be directed to the Court of Appeals.

19 United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998).

20 Plaintiff’s submission fails to comply with LRCiv 7.2(g). He cites neither new facts nor legal authority that could not have been brought to his attention earlier with reasonable diligence. He does not claim that the Court failed to consider material facts that were before it while rendering its prior decision. To the extent Plaintiff makes an argument at all, he merely asks the Court to rethink what it has already decided to do. In sum, nothing in Plaintiff’s “motion” changes the Court’s prior order. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion.

27 / / / / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 14) is DENIED.

3 Dated this 16th day of July, 2020.

5 ' 7 James A. Teil org, Senior United States District Judge -3-