Kettells v. United States of America

Filing 20

ORDER denying petitioner's 19 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Petitioner via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

RONALD CLAUDE KETTELLS,

Case No. C16-891RSL

10
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 19.

16 Petitioner was indicted, tried, and convicted of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery,
17 armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. See Case
18 No. CR11-383RSL. On April 19, 2018, the Court denied petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C.
19 § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, finding his claim for relief foreclosed by the
20 decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782 (9th
21 Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Dkt. # 16. Petitioner filed this motion for reconsideration, Dkt. # 19,
22 asserting various defects in the Court’s order.
23

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only on a

24 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not
25 have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1).
26 Petitioner cites Federal Civil Rules 59(e) and 60. Rule 59(e) provides for motions to alter or
27 amend judgments but “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present
28 evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1 Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 (2008) (marks and citation omitted). Rule 60 provides for relief from a
2 judgment due to mistake or inadvertence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Petitioner shows no manifest
3 error or mistake in the Court’s ruling, nor does he cite new facts or authority that undermine the
4 Court’s previous conclusions. The motion for reconsideration, Dkt. # 19, is DENIED.
5

DATED this 25th day of May, 2018.

6
7
8
9

A
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2