Scott, II v. Maricopa, County of et al
| Gene Edward Scott, II |
| Maricopa, County of, Tennessee, State of, Arkansas, State of and Arizona, State of |
| 2:2022cv00607 |
| April 12, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER: At issue is Plaintiff's #9 motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing his case. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Reconsideration is appropriate if 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. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also LRCiv. 7.2(g). Plaintiff identifies no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law, nor has he shown that the Court's prior order was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's #9 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 5/17/2022. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (MMO)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Reconsideration and Objection re: #8 Order Dismissing Case by Gene Edward Scott, II. (4 Pages) (REK) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended application for a fee waiver (Doc. #7 ) is DENIED as moot. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 5/4/22. (SMH)
|
| Filing 7 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Gene Edward Scott, II. (SMH) |
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Gene Edward Scott, II. (SMH) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for a fee waiver (Doc. #2 ) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. #1 ) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim to relief. If he so chooses, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that cures these deficiencies by no later than May 18, 2022. No amended complaint may be served, however, until it has been screened by the Court. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the timeframe specified herein, the Clerk is directed to terminate this case without further order of the Court. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 4/19/22. (SMH)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT re informational documents attached: (1) Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, (2) Federal Court Self-Service Clinic Flyer, (3) Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, and (4) Notice and Request re Electronic Noticing. (REK) |
| Filing 3 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L. Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-22-00607-PHX-DLR. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (REK) |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Gene Edward Scott, II. (5 Pages) (REK) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Gene Edward Scott, II. (7 Pages and Envelope) (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (REK) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
