Lynam v. Ryan et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 4/19/2019. (MCO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Ray Lynam,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00488-TUC-DCB

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

On March 12, 2019, this Court entered Judgment against Plaintiff and adopted the

16

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the habeas Petition be dismissed

17

as untimely. The Petitioner failed to file it within the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death

18

Penalty Act of 1996 one-year statute of limitation period.

19

On March 28, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He asks the

20

Court to excuse the untimeliness of his Petition because, as a prisoner, he had extremely

21

limited access to legal materials, including the rules governing that access. When it denied

22

the Petition, the Court considered his similar assertions that delay between his state

23

petitions for post-conviction relief were due to time spent researching his claims and the

24

state rules of procedure. Now as it did then, the Court finds that Petitioner’s excuse for his

25

untimely habeas Petition are not the type of extraordinary circumstances beyond his control

26

that would warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

27
28

Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances, such as where
the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial

1

issues presented to the court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of

2

apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or

3

significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court. Such

4

problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare. Above the Belt,

5

Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983); see also, Sullivan

6

v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 308-09 (D. Ariz. 1992).

7

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or

8

fact or to present newly discovered evidence. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,

9

Oregon v. AcandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration

10

should not be used to ask a court "to rethink what the court had already thought through--

11

rightly or wrongly". Above the Belt, Inc., 99 F.R.D. at 101; See Refrigeration Sales Co. v.

12

Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983). Arguments that a court was in

13

error on the issues it considered should be directed to the court of appeals. Id. at 7.

14

The facts and circumstances surrounding the Petition have not changed since this

15

Court's Order concerning these matters; there are no new facts which were discovered since

16

the Court’s disposition of the motion for summary judgment. There is no manifest error

17

of law.

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 21) is

20
21

DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of April, 2019.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-