Martinez v. Arizona, State of et al

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
Anthony Michael Martinez,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Arizona, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02668-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Anthony Martinez’s Motion to Reconsider,
(Doc. 11), and Motion to Stay, (Doc. 13). Both motions will be denied.
“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration . . . 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.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Manifest error
means the “decision must strike the court as more than just maybe or probably wrong—it
must be dead wrong.” See De Silva v. Pima Cnty. Gov’t, 2025 WL 48457, at *2 (D. Ariz.
2025) (quotation marks omitted). Further, a motion for reconsideration must “point out
with specificity” (1) “the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or
misapprehended by the Court,” (2) “any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention
for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier,” and (3) “any specific
modifications being sought in the Court’s Order.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Such motions may
not “repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition
to the motion that resulted in the Order.” Id.; see also Bullock v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 2025
Case 2:25-cv-02668-SHD Document 14 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 2

- 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
WL 1115462, at *1 (D. Ariz. 2025) (“Motions for reconsideration are not the place for
parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs, nor should such motions
be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.” (quotation marks omitted)).
If the movant does not comply with these requirements, this alone “may be grounds for
denial of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).
Martinez requests reconsideration of the order dismissing this case with prejudice.
(See Doc. 11.) However, Martinez fails to identify any “manifest error” in the Court’s
decision or present “new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the
Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Instead, he argues
that the complaint form he used he did not have enough space to present his case. (Doc.
11.) That Martinez felt constrained by the complaint form does not warrant reconsideration
of the order dismissing this case, particularly when, as here, the form did not constrain
Martinez in the manner he alleges. Although Martinez argues he was allowed only “3
finger width or at most 4” of blank space in which to provide the details of his claim, (Doc.
11), the complaint form he used repeatedly reminds litigants that they may “attach
additional pages if needed,” (Doc. 1 at 1–4). The Motion to Reconsider, (Doc. 11), will
therefore be denied.
Because the Court will deny the Motion to Reconsider, the Motion to Stay, (Doc.
13), is moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 11).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Stay, (Doc. 13) as moot.
Dated this 24th day of November.
Case 2:25-cv-02668-SHD Document 14 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 2