Alisic v. United States of America

Filing 19

ORDER that movant Adnan Alisic's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18 ) is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/2/2012.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Adnan Alisic,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Nos. CV-11-00063-PHX-DGC;
CR-06-00717-PHX-DGC
ORDER

vs.

12

United States of America,

13

CC

Defendant.

14

The Court is in receipt of movant Adnan Alisic’s motion to reconsider the Court’s

15

order of February 3, 2012, accepting Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) and denying Alisic’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

17

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 18; see Doc. 16.

18

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

19

circumstances.

20

3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied

21

Aabsent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that

22

could not have been brought to [the Court=s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.@

23

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Alisic does

24

not meet or even address this high standard. He cites no new law or facts that occurred

25

after the Court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. Instead, he re-urges arguments made in his

26

objection to the R&R, including arguments the Court already exercised its discretion to

27

reject because Alisic had not previously raised them before Judge Aspey. Alisic does not

28

See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL

1

refute or even discuss the Court’s analysis. In short, Alisic simply disagrees with the

2

Court’s denial of his motion. But “[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an

3

insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Guillen v. Thompson, No. CV 08-1279-PHX-

4

MHM, 2010 WL 3239419, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2010). Nor should reconsideration be

5

used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

6

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

7
8
9

IT IS ORDERED that movant Adnan Alisic’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.
18) is denied.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-