Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00392/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00392-0/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

Juan Xavier Gloria, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Johnny Tucker, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-0392-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

On June 23, 2005, the Court accepted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending dismissal of Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus as untimely. Doc. #24.

Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion to reargue on July 19, 2005. (Doc.

##26, 27). The Court construed Petitioner’s motions as mot ions for reconsideration of the

Court’s dismissal of the habeas petition, and on September 6, 2005, the motions for

reconsideration were denied. Doc. #28. Id. On October 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion

for relief from judgment. Doc. #29.

The Court will construe Pet it ioner’s motion as a second motion for reconsideration.

T he Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its Order. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.

1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the p lace for

parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest

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

the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.

Case 2:04-cv-00392-DGC Document 30 Filed 01/06/06 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 -

The Court will deny Petitioner’s second mot ion for reconsideration because

Petitioner’s objections do not warrant relief from judgment. Petitioner reiterates the

underlying bases for his petition for writ of habeas corpus, but the fact still remains that

his habeas claim was filed well after the deadline and he has not shown that extraordinary

circumstances p revented him from filing on time. Therefore, Petitioner’s second motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. #29) is denied.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00392-DGC Document 30 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2