Opinion
No. CV-11-1434-PHX-GMS
December 05, 2011.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the order dismissing this case. (Doc. 23). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
This case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on November 17, 2011. The background facts in the case and the reasons for the dismissal are provided in the dismissal order. (Doc. 21).
Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four grounds, "1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such motions ask the Court to "rethink what the court has already thought through – rightly or wrongly." See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Plaintiff's motion reads, in its entirety, "Plaintiff/Pasquale Labate Motion for Reconsideration to review and re-instate Plaintiff law suit against City of Casa Grande. Defendant's Plaintiff justice request and justice for all is my father who challenge the ivil." [ sic] (Doc. 23). Plaintiff raises none of the four issues appropriate for a motion to reconsider, and the motion is therefore denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) is denied. This case is to remain closed.