Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01553/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01553-2/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 

Lon Roger Coleman, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-01553-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Lon Roger Coleman (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on 

July 19, 2012. On February 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf issued a Report 

& Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Petition be denied with prejudice because it was 

untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Doc. 19 

at 20-21. On April 1, 2013, the Court issued an order accepting Judge Metcalf’s R&R 

and denying the petition. Doc. 21. Petitioner filed a motion captioned “Memo to the 

court – notice of errors” on April 29, 2013. The Court will construe the submission as a 

motion for reconsideration and deny the motion. 

 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 it has already considered. See United 

States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. 

v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Under Rule 59(e), a 

motion for reconsideration should not be granted unless the Court is presented with 

Case 2:12-cv-01553-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/23/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. See 389 Orange Street 

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)); Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. 

Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Petitioner has not presented the Court with newly discovered evidence. He has not 

shown that the Court committed clear error when it adopted the R&R, nor has he 

identified an intervening change in controlling law. Petitioner merely reasserts that he 

failed to timely file his petition because he lacks legal knowledge, has limited access to 

research materials, and suffers from mental disorders. All of these complaints were made 

before Magistrate Judge Metcalf, and he concluded that they did not constitute the 

“extraordinary circumstances” necessary for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. 

Doc. 19 at 7-12 (citing Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2009)). This Court 

engaged in a de novo review and also concluded that these reasons did not constitute 

extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of equitable tolling. Doc. 21 at 3-5. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23) is 

denied.

 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01553-DGC Document 24 Filed 05/23/13 Page 2 of 2