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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?