Morrow v. Williams et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying ECF No. 21 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner must file his response to ECF No. 9 Respondents' motion to dismiss by 2/17/2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

TROY ANTHONY MORROW,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:17-cv-00580-MMD-CBC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
Respondents.

10
11

Petitioner Troy Anthony Morrow’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

12

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the court on his motion for reconsideration of the denial of

13

his third motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 21). Under Local Rule 59-1 the court

14

may reconsider such an order if: (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not

15

available when the original motion or response was filed; (2) the court committed clear

16

error, or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change

17

in controlling law.

18

Here, Petitioner filed 8 pages of progress notes by the psychology department at

19

Lovelock Correctional Center dated November 2014 through January 2015 (ECF No. 23-

20

2). The notes reflect that Morrow complained that his psychiatric medications made him

21

feel depressed and caused insomnia. The psychologist indicated that Morrow likely had

22

ADHD, methamphetamine use disorder, dysthymia, substance-induced depressive

23

disorder, and personality disorder. The notes also state: “although stated motivation is

24

purportedly to get relief from depression and more ability to function in the community, he

25

appears much more focused on diagnosis and documentation than treatment.” The

26

examiner further stated that while Morrow was in distress and sought help, he also

27

seemed to over-report and exaggerate symptoms, and that he may be malingering. Id.

28

1

The Court declines to reconsider its prior order. First, these medical notes pre-date

2

Petitioner’s third motion for counsel by more than three years and are thus not newly

3

discovered evidence that was not available when Petitioner filed his motion. Further, while

4

the notes reflect mental health issues that likely have spanned much of Petitioner’s life,

5

they do not support his argument that he is incapable of presenting his habeas claims

6

such that denial of counsel would violate his due process rights. Motions for

7

reconsideration are also disfavored. See LR 59-1(b). Petitioner has not presented a

8

compelling basis to reconsider the denial of appointment of counsel. Therefore, his motion

9

for reconsideration is denied.

10
11
12
13

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 21) is
denied.
It is further ordered that Petitioner must file his response to Respondents’ motion
to dismiss, if any, within 20 days of the date of entry of this order.

14
15

DATED THIS 28th day of January 2019.

16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2