Hayes v. Ryan et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/19/18. (EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Kasey Markeith Hayes,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-04190-PHX-GMS

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Amend Judgment of Petitioner Kasey

17

Markeith Hayes, which the Court will construe as a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc.

18

36). For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

19

Motions for reconsideration are to be granted only in rare circumstances, and the

20

Court “will ordinarily deny” such a motion. L.R. Civ. 7.1(g)(1). Such a motion is

21

appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

22

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

23

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v.

24

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration may not

25

“repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to

26

the motion that resulted in the Order.” L.R. Civ. 7.1(g)(1). As such, “[m]ere disagreement

27

with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Benge v. Ryan, No. CV

28

14-00402-PHX-DGC (BSB), *2 (D. Ariz. filed Feb. 17, 2016).

1

Petitioner argues once again that the victim’s testimony was not credible and that a

2

jury could not have concluded that the assault occurred after the victim’s phone call with

3

B.A. In support of this argument, Petitioner attaches transcripts from his testimony at the

4

trial. The trial transcripts show Petitioner’s testimony that he went to sleep and woke up

5

approximately an hour later to the sound of a phone being off the hook. Petitioner states

6

that he went to hang up the phone, heard sexual noises coming from the victim’s room,

7

and then went back to his room to sleep. These transcripts are not newly discovered

8

evidence. Petitioner has made no argument that there was an intervening change in

9

controlling law. Petitioner has made no colorable claim that the Court’s order committed

10

clear error or was manifestly unjust. Petitioner continues to assert that he did not assault

11

the victim. But the jury heard testimony from both Petitioner and the victim, along with

12

other physical evidence. It is the jury’s role to find facts and to weigh the credibility of

13

witnesses and the evidence. Petitioner’s testimony does not establish his innocence or

14

that the Court committed an error.

15
16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration of
Petitioner Kasey Markeith Hayes (Doc.36) is DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2018.

18
19
20
21

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-