Parnell v. Arnold

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/05/17. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERAMIAN PARNELL,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1949 KJM DB P

Petitioner,
ORDER

v.
E. ARNOLD,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2016, this court dismissed petitioner’s application for

19

a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to filing a civil rights action, denied several other

20

motions and requests, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA). ECF No. 20.

21

Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 21. Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of that part

22

of the order that declined to issue a COA. ECF No. 22.

23

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay

24

of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of

25

judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party

26

seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or different facts or

27

circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

28

the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine, which provides that the
1

1

decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different

2

evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would

3

result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981);

4

see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985).

5

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or

6

amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the

7

unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which

8

might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp.

9

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986);

10

Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings

11

“reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial

12

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009. “A motion for reconsideration should not be

13

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly

14

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

15

law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.

16

2009).

17

Petitioner’s motion does not demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from the order

18

declining to issue a COA. In seeking reconsideration, petitioner offers no different evidence, nor

19

does he establish error in the challenged decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

20

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is denied.

21

DATED: January 5, 2017.

22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2