Henry v. Pinal County Community College District 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
Michael D Henry,
Plaintiff,
v.
Pinal County Community College District,
et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-02996-PHX-KML
ORDER
Plaintiff Michael Henry filed a lawsuit after Central Arizona College (“CAC”)
issued a “no-trespass” order temporarily banning him from CAC property. (Doc. 1.) He
sued various defendants who were allegedly involved in implementing the no-trespass
order. Defendants moved to dismiss all counts. (Doc. 5.) This court granted that motion
and dismissed the complaint on May 4, 2026. (Doc. 8.) Fifteen days later, on May 19, 2026,
Henry filed a motion for reconsideration regarding certain aspects of the order. (Doc. 9.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g), absent a showing of good cause, a motion for
reconsideration must be filed no later than fourteen days after the subject order is issued.
Henry’s motion was filed fifteen days after the relevant order’s filing. He did not address
the motion’s untimeliness, let alone show good cause for the delay. The motion could be
denied on that basis alone.
But the content of the motion, too, makes clear the court’s prior order does not merit
reconsideration. Henry’s motion relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), under which a party
may seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” and
Case 2:25-cv-02996-KML Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 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
alleges the court made mistakes of law. See Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 533
(2022). Local Rule 7.2(g)(1) states reconsideration is only appropriate with “a showing of
manifest error” or “new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the
court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Such motions are disfavored and are
not appropriate simply to “ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.” Motorola,
Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003).
Henry’s motion asks just that. It makes two arguments: the court incorrectly granted
one officer qualified immunity and incorrectly found a Driver Privacy Protection Act
(“DPPA”) exception applied. (Doc. 9 at 2-7.) Henry explicitly acknowledges throughout
the filing that he raised the same arguments in opposing the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 9 at
2-7.) And his motion relies on the same cases he previously cited in briefing. (Doc. 9 at 2-
7; see Doc. 6.) In ignoring the order’s citation to defendants’ assertion of the qualified
immunity defense for Christopher D’Souza’s claim (see Doc. 8 at 4, 6), its reasoning that
he did not cite qualified immunity case-law with sufficiently similar circumstances to
D’Souza’s (Doc. 8 at 7), and its reasoning that he did not properly allege defendants had
impermissible purposes under the DPPA or that he could overcome qualified immunity for
that claim (Doc. 8 at 10), Henry is asking the court to rethink arguments it considered and
rejected.
Henry’s motion reiterates previously-addressed points and does not show manifest
error. It was also untimely filed without explanation or a showing of good cause.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED Henry’s Motion for Relief from the court’s order (Doc. 9) is
DENIED.
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:25-cv-02996-KML Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any amended complaint must be filed no later
than May 27, 2026.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02996-KML Document 10 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 3