Filed: Oct. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER STEVEN P. LOGAN , District Judge . On September 12, 2019, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report & Recommendation and dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 64). Petitioner has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 66). Reconsideration is disfavored and "appropriate only in rare circumstances." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342 , 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mot
Summary: ORDER STEVEN P. LOGAN , District Judge . On September 12, 2019, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report & Recommendation and dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 64). Petitioner has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 66). Reconsideration is disfavored and "appropriate only in rare circumstances." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342 , 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Moti..
More
ORDER
STEVEN P. LOGAN, District Judge.
On September 12, 2019, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine's Report & Recommendation and dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 64). Petitioner has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 66).
Reconsideration is disfavored and "appropriate only in rare circumstances." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Motions for Reconsideration are "not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs," nor should such motions be used to ask the Court to rethink its previous decision. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581 (D. Ariz. 2003).
The Court may grant a motion under Rule 59(e) if the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. V. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court finds that Petitioner's motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 66) is denied.
