Jensen v. Bondi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jason Adam Jensen,
Plaintiff,
v.
Pamela Bondi, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00238-TUC-JGZ
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jason Adam Jensen’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Dismissing the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc.
20.) For the reasons below, the Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration and grant
Plaintiff a 21-day extension to file a third amended complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
In an October 31, 2025 Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.
17.) The Court found that the First Amended Complaint was lengthy, named at least 32
Defendants, raised numerous federal and Arizona and Missouri state law claims, and
incorporated 96 factual allegations into 27 “Causes of Action,” making it difficult to
determine the number and nature of Plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at 2.) The Court granted Plaintiff
leave to amend and instructed him to provide short, plain statements identifying: (1) the
constitutional right or law Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant
who violated the right or law; (3) exactly what that Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional right or law; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that
Defendant’s conduct. (Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 18.) On April 20, 2026, the
Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8. (Doc.
19.) The Court explained that the Second Amended Complaint was 113 pages long,
asserted 93 counts, named numerous Defendants across multiple jurisdictions, and again
contained vague, conclusory, and group allegations that prevented the Court and
Defendants from determining what each Defendant allegedly did and when. (Id. at 3.) The
Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a third amended complaint and warned that failure to
do so would result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff did not file a third amended complaint. Instead, on May 19, 2026, Plaintiff
filed the pending Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 20.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Local Rule
7.2(g)(1) sets forth in detail the standard for a motion for reconsideration:
Form and Content of Motion. The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for
reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing
of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its
attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out
with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or
misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court's
attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier,
and any specific modifications being sought in the Court's Order. No motion
for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made
by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the
Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of
the motion.
LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Absent good cause, a motion for reconsideration must be filed no later
than fourteen days after the date of the order it challenges. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2).
Failure to follow a court’s order or to comply with a court's local rules is grounds
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
Although courts construe pro se filings liberally, “pro se litigants must follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.
1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.
2012).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has not shown that reconsideration is warranted. As an initial matter,
Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely. The Court filed the Order dismissing the Second Amended
Complaint on April 20, 2026. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration on
May 19, 2026, more than fourteen days later. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff does not acknowledge
Local Rule 7.2(g)’s fourteen-day deadline or show good cause for failing to file his Motion
within that time.
In addition, Plaintiff has not shown manifest error or identified new facts or legal
authority that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable
diligence. Plaintiff argues that the Court mischaracterized the Second Amended Complaint
as a shotgun pleading, improperly treated the length and complexity of the pleading as
grounds for dismissal, failed to recognize that several individual claims contain sufficient
factual allegations, and gave Plaintiff insufficient time to amend. (See Doc. 20.) Plaintiff
also challenges the Court’s discussion of Eleventh Amendment immunity and personal
jurisdiction over non-resident Defendants.
These arguments do not satisfy Local Rule 7.2(g). Plaintiff’s disagreement with the
Court’s Rule 8 analysis does not establish manifest error. A motion for reconsideration is
not an opportunity to reargue the sufficiency of claims, present arguments in a different
form, or ask the Court to reconsider matters already decided. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778
F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a district court properly denied a motion for
reconsideration in which the plaintiff presented no arguments that were not already raised
in his original motion). Plaintiff’s Motion largely repeats or reframes arguments
concerning the adequacy of the Second Amended Complaint. That is insufficient to warrant
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reconsideration.
The Court did not dismiss the Second Amended Complaint merely because it was
lengthy or because it incorporated allegations by reference. Rather, the Court dismissed the
pleading because, despite prior instructions, it remained lengthy, unclear, and failed to
provide a short and plain statement showing what each Defendant allegedly did, when each
Defendant acted, how each Defendant’s conduct violated Plaintiff’s rights or a law, and
what injury resulted. Nor is reconsideration warranted because Plaintiff identifies selected
counts that he believes contain sufficient factual allegations. Plaintiff could have filed a
third amended complaint asserting those claims in compliance with Rule 8 and the Court’s
prior Orders.
Plaintiff’s arguments concerning Eleventh Amendment immunity and personal
jurisdiction also do not justify reconsideration. Plaintiff does not identify controlling law
that the Court overlooked or newly discovered facts requiring a different result. Instead, he
disagrees with the Court’s prior analysis, which is not a basis for reconsideration. See
Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.1981)
(explaining that dissatisfaction with a court’s order or belief that the court was wrong is
not an adequate basis for relief).
Plaintiff argues that the 30-day amendment deadline was constitutionally and
practically inadequate and requests 90 days to file a third amended complaint. (Doc. 20 at
8–9.) Plaintiff contends that additional time is necessary because the Court’s Order requires
him to restructure a 113-page, 93-count pleading involving multiple jurisdictions, legal
theories, and related proceedings. (Id.) He also argues that the Court’s reference to the
court-approved complaint form creates practical difficulties because his claims exceed the
scope of that form. (Id.)
The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments and disagrees that a 90-day
extension is warranted. Plaintiff previously received leave to amend and detailed
instructions regarding Rule 8. His Second Amended Complaint failed to follow the
instructions and to comply with Rule 8. The task before Plaintiff is not to repackage all 93
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
counts in another lengthy complaint, but to file a short and plain statement of any claims
he seeks to pursue stating the when, where, what and who necessary to allege a specific
claim against a specific defendant(s). Nonetheless, given Plaintiff’s pro se status and his
stated concerns regarding the formatting of a third amended complaint, the Court will grant
a final extension of time. Plaintiff filed the Motion for Reconsideration on May 19, 2026,
before the amendment deadline expired. Since that date he has had time to consider the
deficiencies identified in the Court’s earlier orders. The Court therefore finds that 21
additional days is sufficient time for Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint. The Court
will not require Plaintiff to use the court-approved prisoner civil rights form, but Plaintiff’s
amended complaint must be complete in itself, may not incorporate prior pleadings by
reference, must include only one claim per count, and must clearly identify what each
Defendant allegedly did, when the Defendant did it, how that conduct violated Plaintiff’s
rights (or a law), and what injury resulted.1 No further extensions will be granted absent
extraordinary circumstances.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
1 A third amended complaint will supersede the original Complaint and any prior amended
complaints. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v.
Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court
will treat the original Complaint and any prior amended complaints as nonexistent. Ferdik,
963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint or prior
amended complaints and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without
prejudice is waived if it is not alleged in a third amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 20) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has 21 days from the date this Order
is entered to file a third amended complaint in compliance with this Order and the Court’s
prior Orders.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff fails to file a third amended
complaint within 21 days, the Clerk of Court must, without further notice, enter a judgment
of dismissal of this action without prejudice and deny any pending unrelated motions as
moot.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 21 Filed 06/09/26 Page 6 of 6