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
On April 20, 2026, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for
failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and gave Plaintiff 30
days to file a third amended complaint. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff did not file a third amended
complaint. Instead, on the last day of the deadline, Plaintiff filed an untimely motion for
reconsideration of the April 20, 2026 order. (Doc. 20.)
On June 9, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, but, in
light of his pro se status, granted him a final 21-day extension to file a third amended
complaint. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff responded that same day by filing the present motion for
reconsideration of the June 9 Order (“Second Motion for Reconsideration”). (Doc. 22.) The
Motion, which is 24 pages long and generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI), asks the
Court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s prior motion for reconsideration, find that his
claims pass screening, and direct the Clerk of Court to issue summonses. (Doc. 22 at 23–
24.)
Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Motion 	largely 	repeats 	or 	reframes 	his 	prior 	arguments
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 23 Filed 06/15/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
concerning the Court’s Rule 8 analysis, the liberal construction owed to pro se pleadings,
and the adequacy of the Second Amended Complaint. The Court has already considered
and addressed these arguments. Plaintiff’s additional arguments concerning § 1915(e)(2),
personal jurisdiction, an order to show cause, and constitutional or natural-law principles
likewise do not identify manifest error, newly discovered facts, or intervening controlling
authority. Plaintiff has not shown that the June 9, 2026 Order contains manifest error or
that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiff’s contentions
provide no basis for reconsideration under Local Rule 7.2(g). Plaintiff’s disagreement with
the Court’s prior analysis is not a basis for reconsideration. Twentieth Century-Fox Film
Corp., 637 F.2d at 1341
The Court’s prior Orders gave Plaintiff notice of the deficiencies in his pleadings
and multiple opportunities to amend. (See Docs. 17, 19, 21.) The extension granted in the
June 9, 2026 Order, (Doc. 21), was intended to afford Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the
deficiencies in his pleading by filing a third amended complaint. That deadline continues
to run. Plaintiff’s filing of another motion for reconsideration, rather than a third amended
complaint, brings him no closer to the relief he seeks. If Plaintiff believes this Court has
erred, he may seek review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after a final order is
entered. A motion to reconsider what the Court has already considered is not appropriate.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 23 Filed 06/15/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June
9, 2026 Order (Doc. 22) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff remains subject to the deadline set in
the Court’s June 9, 2026 Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a third amended complaint within
the time permitted, the Clerk of Court must enter judgment dismissing this action without
prejudice and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot.
Dated this 15th day of June, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00238-JGZ Document 23 Filed 06/15/26 Page 3 of 3