McGary v. Strong

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration of the 12 Order denying the Motion for Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

DARNELL O MCGARY,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO. C14-5829 BHS-KLS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
MARK STRONG,
Respondent.

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s denial
of his request for discovery. Dkt. 15. In the Court’s November 12, 2014 Order, it denied

17

Petitioner’s motion for discovery because the Court’s review of Petitioner’s habeas
18

petition is limited to the record that was before the state court and because Mr. McGary
19
20
21

had not shown that discovery was otherwise appropriate. Dkt. 12.
Mr. McGary contends that this Court improperly entered its Order before he

22 submitted his reply and asks that the Court review his reply and reconsider its Order.
23 Dkt. 15. The Court has thoroughly reviewed Mr. McGary’s reply and finds that his
24 motion for reconsideration should be denied.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION- 1

1

Under Local Rule CR7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be

2 denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority
3 which could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. The standard has
4
5

not been met in this case. As previously noted by the Court, Mr. McGary fails to provide
specific allegations showing reason to believe that, if the facts are fully developed, he

6

may be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. See e.g., Bracy v. Gramley, 520
7

U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969). Mr.
8
9
10

McGary argues that unidentified discovery will limit “the extraneous review of over a
thousand pages of proceedings” but also contends that “if the court relies solely on the

11 record, it will find that” he is entitled to habeas relief.
12

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

13

(1)

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 15) is DENIED.

14

(2)

The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for

15 Respondent.
16

DATED this 24th day of November, 2014.

A

17
18

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION- 2