Opinion
No. CV 10-1074-PHX-DGC.
February 8, 2011
ORDER
Defendant United States moves for reconsideration of this Court's December 28, 2010, order retaining subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim. Doc. 18. The motion is denied. See Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2008) (the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is self-executing).
Plaintiff Steven Rhodes moves for reconsideration of the same order dismissing his § 7433 claim without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. Doc. 20. Plaintiff's arguments are not properly raised on a motion for reconsideration. 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); 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, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see N. W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff also observes that, as a non-lawyer, he should not have been expected to know the IRS servicing address for exhaustion, an address present in such obscure documents as IRS Notice 2003-19 and IRS Publication 4235. Doc. 20 at 6. Even pro se plaintiffs, however, must comply with the law.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied.
2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) is denied.
DATED this 8th day of February, 2011.