Parnell v. Arnold
ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/05/17. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:15-cv-1949 KJM DB P
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2016, this court dismissed petitioner’s application for
a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to filing a civil rights action, denied several other
motions and requests, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA). ECF No. 20.
Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 21. Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of that part
of the order that declined to issue a COA. ECF No. 22.
Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay
of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of
judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party
seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or different facts or
circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for
the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine, which provides that the
decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different
evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would
result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981);
see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985).
Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or
amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the
unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which
might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp.
1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986);
Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings
“reflect district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial
efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009. “A motion for reconsideration should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling
law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.
Petitioner’s motion does not demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from the order
declining to issue a COA. In seeking reconsideration, petitioner offers no different evidence, nor
does he establish error in the challenged decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is denied.
DATED: January 5, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?