Turner v. Ryan et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 10/11/2019. (ARC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Leonard Turner,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00179-TUC-JGZ (JR)

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

On August 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge

16

Jacqueline Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) to dismiss Turner’s habeas

17

petition. (Doc. 21.) Now pending before the Court, is Turner’s Motion for Reconsideration

18

of that Order. (Doc. 23.) The Court will deny the motion.

19

Turner asserts three arguments in support of reconsideration: (1) he did not consent

20

to the Magistrate Judge’s consideration of his case; (2) he challenges the Court’s finding

21

that his Objection to the R&R was untimely filed; and (3) he re-asserts arguments he raised

22

before the Magistrate Judge and in his Objection concerning his claims related to the

23

Intoxilyzer used in his case.

24

A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented

25

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

26

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

27

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also LRCiv.

28

7.2(g)(1). Motions for reconsideration should not be used for the purpose of asking a court

1

“‘to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders

2

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt,

3

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

4

Turner’s Motion for Reconsideration is unpersuasive. First, Turner’s “consent” to

5

the Magistrate Judge’s consideration of his habeas petition is not required. The Court

6

referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Rateau for report and recommendation pursuant to

7

Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings. (Doc.

8

4.) See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Second, even if Turner’s Objection was timely filed,

9

this Court found that Petitioner’s arguments raised in his objection did not undermine the

10

Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation.

11

essentially raises the same arguments that he asserted in his Objection, which the Court

12

considered in adopting the R&R.1 “A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate

13

method for an unsuccessful party to rehash arguments previously presented.” Shupe v.

14

Cricket Commc’ns Inc., No. CV 12-634-TUC-CKJ, 2013 WL 12114837, at *1 (D. Ariz.

15

Sept. 18, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly,

(Doc. 21 at 2.)

Finally, Turner

16

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) is DENIED.

17

Dated this 11th day of October, 2019.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The Court notes that Turner’s Motion for Reconsideration refers to two 2019
airline crashes he contends occurred because software was not updated. Turner did not
mention these crashes in his previous filings. He apparently relies on the crashes to
underscore his position maintained throughout this litigation that software issues can render
machines, like the Intolixyzer used to test his breath alcohol concentration, unreliable. The
crashes have no relevance to this case other than for purposes of analogy. Consequently,
Turner’s reference to the crashes to re-urge an argument he has previously and repeatedly
made does not constitute “newly discovered evidence” that would entitle him to
reconsideration.
-2-