Coleman v. Ryan et al

Filing 24

ORDER that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23 ) is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/23/2013.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lon Roger Coleman,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-12-01553-PHX-DGC

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Lon Roger Coleman (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on

15

July 19, 2012. On February 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report

16

& Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Petition be denied with prejudice because it was

17

untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Doc. 19

18

at 20-21. On April 1, 2013, the Court issued an order accepting Judge Metcalf’s R&R

19

and denying the petition. Doc. 21. Petitioner filed a motion captioned “Memo to the

20

court – notice of errors” on April 29, 2013. The Court will construe the submission as a

21

motion for reconsideration and deny the motion.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

should such motions ask the Court to rethink what it has already considered. See United

26

States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc.

27

v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Under Rule 59(e), a

28

motion for reconsideration should not be granted unless the Court is presented with

1

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

2

unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. See 389 Orange Street

3

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v.

4

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)); Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R.

5

Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

Petitioner has not presented the Court with newly discovered evidence. He has not

7

shown that the Court committed clear error when it adopted the R&R, nor has he

8

identified an intervening change in controlling law. Petitioner merely reasserts that he

9

failed to timely file his petition because he lacks legal knowledge, has limited access to

10

research materials, and suffers from mental disorders. All of these complaints were made

11

before Magistrate Judge Metcalf, and he concluded that they did not constitute the

12

“extraordinary circumstances” necessary for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

13

Doc. 19 at 7-12 (citing Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009)). This Court

14

engaged in a de novo review and also concluded that these reasons did not constitute

15

extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of equitable tolling. Doc. 21 at 3-5.

16
17
18

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23) is
denied.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2013.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-