Grady v. Biter

Filing 61

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Reconsideration re 51 Order Adopting Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/10/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 MARQUISE GRADY, 13 Case No. 13-cv-2479-BAS(MDD) Petitioner, 14 15 v. 16 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION M.D. BITER, 17 [ECF No. 60] Respondent. 18 19 20 On February 10, 2016, this Court overruled Petitioner Marquise Grady’s 21 objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, 22 and denied Mr. Grady’s habeas petition. Judgment was entered the next day. 23 However, Mr. Grady did not receive a copy of the order until August 16, 2016. Then 24 the Court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Grady’s motion for “relief from the 25 judgment,” which effectively requested an extension of time to file a motion for 26 reconsideration and a notice of appeal. Only the former was granted. Mr. Grady now 27 moves for reconsideration. 28 // –1– 13cv2479 1 In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Grady presents arguments that either 2 have been raised or could have been raised either in his traverse to the answer or 3 objections to the Report & Recommendation. Such arguments are not properly raised 4 in a reconsideration motion. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 5 (2008) (“[A Rule 59(e) motion] ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise 6 arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 7 judgment.’”); San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 624 8 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1208 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“[A] Rule 60(b)(1) reconsideration motion 9 should not merely present arguments previously raised, or which could have been 10 raised in the original briefs.”); see also Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-CV- 11 2342-L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (Lorenz, J.) (“[A]fter 12 thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for 13 reconsideration.). Because the arguments presented either are not properly before the 14 Court under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), the Court DENIES Mr. Grady’s motion 15 for reconsideration. See id. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: April 10, 2017 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 –2– 13cv2479

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?