Jones #076408 v. Shinn et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying the 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner's objection to Magistrate Judge Metcalf's recommendation that his Motion (Doc. 17 ) be denied is due by September 15, 2021. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 9/8/2021. (LFIG)

Case 2:19-cv-05258-DJH Document 37 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 4

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Craig Murray Jones,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-19-05258-PHX-DJH

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Craig Murray Jones’s (“Petitioner”) Motion

16

for Reconsideration (Doc. 36) of the Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s request for an

17

extension of time to file objections to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s

18

recommendation (Doc. 33) that his Motions for Release and Appointment of Counsel (Doc.

19

17) be denied.

20

I.

Background

21

Petitioner initiated this action on September 23, 2019, by filing a Petition for Writ

22

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1). On October 7,

23

2020, while the Petition was pending before Magistrate Judge Metcalf, Petitioner filed a

24

“Motion for Release From Confinement on Recognizance or Surety Pending Adjudication

25

of Habeas Corpus Proceedings; In the Alternative Motion for Appointment of Counsel”

26

(“Motion”) (Doc. 17). On August 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued his Report

27

and Recommendation (“R&R) (Doc. 33). Therein, Judge Metcalf recommends this Court

28

dismiss Petitioner’s Petition as untimely; he also recommends that this Court deny the relief

Case 2:19-cv-05258-DJH Document 37 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 4

1

sought in Petitioner’s Motion. (Id.) Petitioner subsequently asked this Court for an

2

extension of time to file objections to the R&R on the grounds that he was not being

3

provided adequate mental health treatment. (Doc. 34). The Court allowed Petitioner an

4

additional 30 days to file objections to Judge Metcalf’s recommendation that his Petition

5

be dismissed but required that any objections with regards to the recommendation that his

6

Motion for Release and Motion for Appointment of Counsel be denied be filed by

7

September 7, 2021. (Doc. 35). Instead of filing an objection by this deadline, Petitioner

8

filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (Doc. 36), in which he states he “suffers

9

from serious documented, diagnosed mental illnesses that interferes with his logical and

10

meaningful connection to things presented to him…” Petitioner further states that he

11

“believed the 30 day extension of time would have covered all issues within the [R&R]”

12

including the recommendations on his Motion. (Id.)

13

I.

Legal Standards

14

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii,

15

42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). But motions for reconsideration are generally

16

disfavored and should be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new

17

facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier

18

with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g); See also Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909

19

F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (holding motions for reconsideration should be

20

granted only in rare circumstances). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an

21

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572,

22

1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument

23

previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers

24

Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Such motions should not

25

be used for the purpose of asking a court “to rethink what the court had already thought

26

through — rightly or wrongly.” Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351. Such disagreements should

27

be dealt with in the normal appellate process. See Ramsey v. Arizona, 2006 WL 2711490,

28

at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2006).

-2-

Case 2:19-cv-05258-DJH Document 37 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 4

1

II.

Analysis

2

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the denial on the grounds that he has “serious

3

documented, diagnosed mental illnesses” and thus should be afforded extra time to object

4

to Judge Metcalf’s recommendation that his Motion be denied. (Doc. 36). In doing so,

5

Petitioner repeats the same arguments he made in his Motion for an Extension of Time.

6

(See Doc. 34). Petitioner’s failure to raise any new facts that the Court did not already have

7

an opportunity to consider when it denied his previous request for more time is grounds to

8

deny the Motion for Reconsideration. Motorola, Inc., 215 F.R.D. at 586 (motion for

9

reconsideration shall not repeat an argument previously made). Notably, Petitioner makes

10

similar assertions of “deteriorating health” in his Motion for Release, which the Magistrate

11

Judge criticized as lacking in specifics. (Doc. 17). Both Petitioner’s request for an

12

extension of time to respond to Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s recommendation that his

13

Motion for Release and Motion to Appoint Counsel and motion for reconsideration also

14

lack specifics regarding his health. Petitioner also does not explain how an additional 30

15

days will allow him to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, i.e., he does

16

not say his mental health issues will be resolved in that time or identify objections he wants

17

to make to Magistrate Judge’s legal and factual findings on his two requests that require

18

additional time. Petitioner has shown himself capable of presenting timely and relevant

19

arguments in support of himself throughout these proceedings. While the Court granted

20

Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s more

21

complex and lengthy findings on his Petition, the Court affirms the conclusion that

22

Petitioner should be able to timely file any objection regarding these two discrete rulings

23

before that deadline.

24

Under the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 35), Petitioner’s objection to Judge Metcalf’s

25

recommendations on his Motion was due on September 7, 2021, and therefore any

26

objection is now late. The Court will nevertheless grant Petitioner a seven-day extension

27

to file his objection. Petitioner is on notice that failure to file an objection by September

28

15, 2021, may result in the summary affirmance of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation

-3-

Case 2:19-cv-05258-DJH Document 37 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 4

1

on his Motion (Doc. 17).

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 36) is denied.

4

Petitioner’s objection to Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s recommendation that his Motion

5

(Doc. 17) be denied is due by September 15, 2021.

6

Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.

7
8
9
10

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

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

-4-