Johnson v. Arizona, State of

Filing 33

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 7/27/12. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Eugene Boyd Johnson,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

12
The State of Arizona, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-2096-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16

On June 25, 2012, after considering Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

17

Respondent’s Answer, and Magistrate Judge Logan’s Report and Recommendations (“R &

18

R”), the Court denied the petition. (Doc. 30). The factual background and legal issues in this

19

case are all set forth in the order denying the Petition, and will not be repeated here. On July

20

10, Petitioner submitted a “Second Response and Objections” to the R & R, which upon

21

inspection is identical in all material respects to his first set of objections. (Doc. 32). The

22

Second Response and Objections will be interpreted as a Motion for Reconsideration of the

23

Court’s order denying the Petition.

24

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

25

new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance

26

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such

27

motions ask the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought through–rightly or

28

wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)

1

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

2

1983)).

3

Petitioner’s motion is identical in all material respects to his original set of objections,

4

which the Court has already considered and denied. The only difference that the Court can

5

find between Petitioner’s current filing and his original objections is that the original

6

objections were submitted by “Tina Linder” while the new objections are signed by “Tina

7

Linder-Johnson.” Petitioner not only fails to raise issues appropriate for a Motion for

8

Reconsideration, he does not raise any issues that are distinct from those in his original

9

objections. His motion is denied.

10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 32).
This case shall remain closed.
DATED this 27th day of July, 2012.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-