WOODRUFF v. LUKE

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 12/2/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
JOHN MICHAEL WOODRUFF,
Petitioner,
VS.
JOSHUA LUKE,

Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

7 : 15-CV-184 (HL)

ORDER
Pending in this § 2254 proceeding is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 7).
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing without prejudice Petitioner’s
application for federal habeas relief and finding Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to be moot. The
Court notes that pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, motions for reconsideration “shall not be filed as a
matter of routine practice”. This Court has held that
[l]itigants should not seek to amend previously submitted
documents merely as a means for prolonging disposition of the
matter but, instead, only as required in rare circumstances . . . And
the Court has no obligation to consider untimely amendments. . . .
Motions for reconsideration are only appropriate if the movant can
show: (1) there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) new
evidence has been discovered that was not previously available to
the parties at the time the original order was entered, or (3)
reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice. Court opinions are not intended as mere
first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s
pleasure. As such, a motion for reconsideration does not provide
an opportunity to simply reargue an issue the Court has once
determined.
Thomas v. Owens, 2009 WL 3747162, *1 (M.D.Ga. Nov. 4, 2009) (internal

citations omitted).
In his Motion for Reconsideration, the Petitioner asserts that the Court “misapprehended
the premise for Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend the petition”, and appears to seek to add
the assertion that he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he stands convicted. (Doc. 7).
Petitioner fails to meet the requisite standard for granting a motion for reconsideration. He
has shown no intervening change in the law, has presented no new evidence, and has
demonstrated no need to correct a clear error of law. His motion is, accordingly, denied.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of December, 2015.

s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2