Ramirez v. USA

Filing 22

ORDER that Ramirez's 19 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. This case shall remain closed. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 6/8/2018. (SIB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

George Ramirez, Jr.,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00334-TUC-RCC

USA,

13

Respondent.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is George Ramirez’s motion for reconsideration. Doc.
19. For the following reasons, this Court shall deny the motion.

17

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.

18

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for

19

reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly

20

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

21

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J,

22

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions

23

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had

24

already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at

25

1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101

26

(E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or

27

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in

28

the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

1

Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of

2

or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215

3

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an

4

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

5

1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

6
7

Here, Plaintiff has not directed the Court’s attention to any newly discovered
evidence, clear error or intervening change in law. Thus, his motion shall be denied.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ramirez’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

10
11

This case shall remain closed.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2018.

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

-2-