United States District Court, D. Arizona
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Verble has filed a motion for re-examination of petition (which the Court has construed as a motion for reconsideration). Doc. 6.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. Such a motion is 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)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D.Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008).
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has presented no new facts or legal authority that would justify the Court's reconsideration of its decision. Instead, Plaintiff argues only that the Court misinterpreted the in forma pauperis application. The Court will furnish Plaintiff with a copy of his in forma pauperis application with this order.
In its previous order (Doc. 5), the Court gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before February 21, 2014. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. The Court will afford Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend his complaint.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for re-examination of petition (Doc. 6) is denied.
2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before March 14, 2014. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by March 14, 2014, the clerk shall terminate this action without further order of the Court.
3. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of Doc. 2 (Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma ...