Parnell v. Arnold

Filing 23

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

Download PDF
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

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?