Opinion
CV 22-00166-PHX-JAT (MHB)
04-27-2022
Kevlin Omar Brown, Plaintiff, v. Mark Brnovich, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff Kevlin Omar Brown, who is proceeding in forma pauperis and is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an April 5, 2022 Order, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Judgment was entered the same day. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's April 15, 2022 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12).
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through - rightly or wrongly.'” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).
The Court has reviewed the Order of Dismissal and Motion for Reconsideration and finds no basis to reconsider dismissal of this action; Plaintiff's arguments were addressed in the Order of Dismissal. The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is denied.
(2) This case must remain closed.