Patterson v. Maciel

Full title: Barry Northcross Patterson, Plaintiff, v. CO Maciel, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: May 17, 2006

No. CV-03-2179-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. May. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV-03-2179-PHX-PGR.

May 17, 2006

ORDER

PAUL ROSENBLATT, District Judge

The Court entered its order (doc. #45) granting the defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissing this action on March 31, 2006, and it entered its judgment of dismissal (doc. #46) on April 3, 2006. On April 18, 2006, the plaintiff filed both a Motion to Reconsider (doc. #47) and a Notice of Appeal (doc. #48).

Having considered the Motion to Reconsider,¹ which the Court construes as a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e),² American Ironworks Erectors, Inc. v. North American Construction Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9^th Cir. 2001), the Court finds that the motion should be denied because the motion is in effect a rehash of arguments already raised by the plaintiff and rejected by the Court; the motion does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence, establish that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, or persuade the Court that its order of dismissal was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust as a matter of law. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9^th Cir. 1993).

1 The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Reconsider notwithstanding the simultaneous filing of the Notice of Appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

2 Although the Motion to Reconsider was filed on April 18, 2006, the motion is dated as being signed on April 17, 2006 and the Court considers that date to be the filing date under the mail box rule for purposes of considering the timeliness of the motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 59(e) and 6(a).

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (doc. #47) is denied.