Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02479/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02479-3/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 – 13cv2479 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARQUISE GRADY, 

 Petitioner, 

Case No. 13-cv-2479-BAS(MDD) 

ORDER DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[ECF No. 60] 

 v. 

M.D. BITER, 

 Respondent. 

On February 10, 2016, this Court overruled Petitioner Marquise Grady’s 

objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, 

and denied Mr. Grady’s habeas petition. Judgment was entered the next day. 

However, Mr. Grady did not receive a copy of the order until August 16, 2016. Then 

the Court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Grady’s motion for “relief from the 

judgment,” which effectively requested an extension of time to file a motion for 

reconsideration and a notice of appeal. Only the former was granted. Mr. Grady now 

moves for reconsideration. 

// 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 61 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
 – 2 – 13cv2479 

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 

In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Grady presents arguments that either 

have been raised or could have been raised either in his traverse to the answer or 

objections to the Report & Recommendation. Such arguments are not properly raised 

in a reconsideration motion. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 

(2008) (“[A Rule 59(e) motion] ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise 

arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment.’”); San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 624 

F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1208 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (“[A] Rule 60(b)(1) reconsideration motion 

should not merely present arguments previously raised, or which could have been 

raised in the original briefs.”); see also Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-CV2342-L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (Lorenz, J.) (“[A]fter 

thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an appropriate basis for 

reconsideration.). Because the arguments presented either are not properly before the 

Court under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), the Court DENIES Mr. Grady’s motion 

for reconsideration. See id. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2017 

 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 61 Filed 04/10/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2