Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER G. ZIPPS , District Judge . On August 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau's Report and Recommendation (R&R) to dismiss Turner's habeas petition. (Doc. 21.) Now pending before the Court, is Turner's Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. (Doc. 23.) The Court will deny the motion. Turner asserts three arguments in support of reconsideration: (1) he did not consent to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of his case; (2) he challe
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER G. ZIPPS , District Judge . On August 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau's Report and Recommendation (R&R) to dismiss Turner's habeas petition. (Doc. 21.) Now pending before the Court, is Turner's Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. (Doc. 23.) The Court will deny the motion. Turner asserts three arguments in support of reconsideration: (1) he did not consent to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of his case; (2) he challen..
More
ORDER
JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, District Judge.
On August 19, 2019, the Court entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau's Report and Recommendation (R&R) to dismiss Turner's habeas petition. (Doc. 21.) Now pending before the Court, is Turner's Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. (Doc. 23.) The Court will deny the motion.
Turner asserts three arguments in support of reconsideration: (1) he did not consent to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of his case; (2) he challenges the Court's finding that his Objection to the R&R was untimely filed; and (3) he re-asserts arguments he raised before the Magistrate Judge and in his Objection concerning his claims related to the Intoxilyzer used in his case.
A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1). Motions for reconsideration should not be used for the purpose of asking a court "`to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.'" Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1996) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Turner's Motion for Reconsideration is unpersuasive. First, Turner's "consent" to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of his habeas petition is not required. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Rateau for report and recommendation pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings. (Doc. 4.) See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Second, even if Turner's Objection was timely filed, this Court found that Petitioner's arguments raised in his objection did not undermine the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. (Doc. 21 at 2.) Finally, Turner essentially raises the same arguments that he asserted in his Objection, which the Court considered in adopting the R&R.1 "A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate method for an unsuccessful party to rehash arguments previously presented." Shupe v. Cricket Commc'ns Inc., No. CV 12-634-TUC-CKJ, 2013 WL 12114837, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 18, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
