Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00439/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00439-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMON F. RANTEESI, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-0439 GEB GGH P

vs.

RANDY GROUNDS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has filed a request (Doc. 20) for reconsideration of this court's order

filed June 30, 2010, striking the unexhausted claims from petitioner’s petition. 

Standards For Motions To Reconsider

Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court,

Frito-Lay of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981),

considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus Local Rule 230(k)

requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or

different facts or circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

grounds exist for the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine which

provides that the decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is

substantially different evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly

Case 2:10-cv-00439-GEB-TJB Document 26 Filed 07/22/10 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

2

erroneous and would result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d

391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied, 475 U.S. 1064 (1986).

Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the

alteration or amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle

permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present 

“contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United

States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268

(7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). 

These holdings “reflect[] district courts' concerns for preserving dwindling resources and

promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009.

In the instant action, petitioner has presented no new facts or arguments, thus his

motion is denied. Petitioner is reminded that his petition is not dismissed, it simply only

proceeds on the exhausted claims.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, this court's

order of June 30, 2010 is affirmed. 

Dated: July 21, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-00439-GEB-TJB Document 26 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2