United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 19, 2015
Corey Darnell Edwards, Plaintiff,
Mesa Municipal Court, et al., Defendants.
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
This case was dismissed without prejudice on January 28, 2015, due to Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with Court rules and orders. Doc. 15. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for "appeal" which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 18. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for management conference. Doc. 17. The Court will deny both motions.
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on June 12, 2014, in Maricopa County Superior Court against Mesa Municipal Court, Chandler Police, Mesa Police, Maricopa County Sheriff's Department ("MCSO"), and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio. Doc. 1-1 at 5.
On July 31, 2014, Defendants Mesa Municipal Court and the Mesa Police Department ("Mesa Defendants") filed a motion for a more definite statement. Doc. 4. On August 1, 2014, Defendant MCSO filed a motion to dismiss. Doc. 5. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motions within the time limit set by the rules of procedure. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). The Court issued an order giving Plaintiff until September 29, 2014 to file responses. Doc. 6. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in the Court summarily granting the motions. Plaintiff filed a response to the Mesa Defendants' motion for more definite statement (Doc. 7), but did not respond to MCSO's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did file two "motions for judgment." Docs. 9, 10.
The Court entered an order on November 18, 2014, granting the Mesa Defendants' motion for a more definite statement, granting MCSO's motion to dismiss, denying Plaintiff's motions for judgment, and ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by December 22, 2014. Doc. 12. Plaintiff was warned "that if he fails to file an amended complaint by December 22, 2014, the case will be dismissed." Id. at 6. Plaintiff was also given guidance regarding the content of his amended complaint. Id. at 4-6.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order. More than six weeks passed after the Court's deadline, and no amended complaint was filed. Plaintiff filed another motion, apparently directed to MCSO, "for more Details." Doc. 14.
Applying the five factors set forth in Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court concluded that dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate result. Among other things, the Court noted that it "cannot be in the business of repeatedly having to prompt a litigant to follow court orders or the local rules." Doc. 15 at 2.
II. Motion for Reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr.15, 2008). A motion for reconsideration will 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)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.
Plaintiff's motion does not identify any basis for reconsideration of the Court's previous order. He recounts some of the events leading to his complaint in this case, asserts that an amended complaint is not needed, and makes other assertions not relevant to reconsideration. Doc. 18. Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Because this case has been dismissed, Plaintiff is directed not to make further filings in this action.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied.
2. Plaintiff's motion for management conference (Doc. 17) is denied as moot.
3. Plaintiff shall not file motions or other documents in this dismissed action.