Opinion
No. CV-05-2179-PHX-DGC.
June 7, 2006
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal Order. Doc. #58. The Court will construe this filing as a motion to reconsider its order of April 12, 2006 granting NPMHU's motion for summary judgment. Doc. #47. Under the Court's local rules, NPMHU is not permitted to file a response to Plaintiff's motion unless ordered by the Court. See LRCiv.7.2(g). NPMHU nonetheless filed a response to Plaintiff's motion. Doc. #59. Because the Court's local rules do not permit briefing on a motion for reconsideration without Court order, the Court will rule on the motion without further briefing.
The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its order granting summary judgment. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz. 1998).
Plaintiff asserts a number of arguments not contained in his original summary judgment briefing. As noted above, a motion for reconsideration is not the place to assert new arguments. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the Court will address Plaintiff's one relevant argument.
Plaintiff suggests that the Court erred in applying a 6-month statute of limitations to his claim against NPMHU. Relying on Farber v. City of Patterson, 440 F.3d 131 (3rd Cir. 2006), Plaintiff argues that the Court should have applied a six-year limitations period. The Farber case, however, was applying the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act. It does not apply to the claim in this case.
Plaintiff asserts a variety of additional arguments in his motion. Some concern grievances that are not a part of this case. The Court will not address these issues.
Plaintiff also suggests in his motion that he desires to amend his complaint. The Court held a Rule 16 case management conference with Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants on May 31, 2006, and established a deadline for filing motions to amend. The case management order reflecting that deadline will be issued shortly. If Plaintiff desires to amend his complaint, he should file a proper motion to amend under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within the time permitted under the case management order.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Dismissal Order (Doc. #58) is denied.