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)

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