Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02096-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eugene Boyd Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

The State of Arizona, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2096-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On June 25, 2012, after considering Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

Respondent’s Answer, and Magistrate Judge Logan’s Report and Recommendations (“R &

R”), the Court denied the petition. (Doc. 30). The factual background and legal issues in this

case are all set forth in the order denying the Petition, and will not be repeated here. On July

10, Petitioner submitted a “Second Response and Objections” to the R & R, which upon

inspection is identical in all material respects to his first set of objections. (Doc. 32). The

Second Response and Objections will be interpreted as a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Court’s order denying the Petition.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such

motions ask the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought through–rightly or

wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)

Case 2:10-cv-02096-GMS Document 33 Filed 07/27/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

1983)).

Petitioner’s motion is identical in all material respects to his original set of objections,

which the Court has already considered and denied. The only difference that the Court can

find between Petitioner’s current filing and his original objections is that the original

objections were submitted by “Tina Linder” while the new objections are signed by “Tina

Linder-Johnson.” Petitioner not only fails to raise issues appropriate for a Motion for

Reconsideration, he does not raise any issues that are distinct from those in his original

objections. His motion is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 32).

This case shall remain closed.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02096-GMS Document 33 Filed 07/27/12 Page 2 of 2