Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00485/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00485-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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 MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David Frank Jennings,

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV 20-00485-PHX-MTL (JFM)

 CR 06-00684-PHX-MTL

ORDER

On March 6, 2020, Movant David Frank Jennings, who is confined in the United 

States Penitentiary-McCreary in Pine Knot, Kentucky, filed a pro se Motion Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. 

In a March 17, 2020 Order, the Court summarily dismissed the § 2255 Motion because 

Movant waived the right to file a § 2255 Motion. The Court declined to issue a certificate 

of appealability, concluding that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural 

ruling debatable. The Clerk of Court entered Judgment the same day.

On March 31, 2020, Movant filed a “Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of 

Movant[’]s 2255 Motion and/or for Issuance of Certificate of Appealability” (Doc. 5). He 

notes that he claimed in his § 2255 Motion that his criminal judgment and sentence were 

“void and/or void ab initio because this Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction 

because [the United States] did not have jurisdiction over the land on which the alleged 

crime was committed.” In his Motion for Reconsideration, Movant contends that subjectmatter jurisdiction cannot be waived.

Case 2:20-cv-00485-MTL--JFM Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 

reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be 

used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought 

through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above 

the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion 

for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 

time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., 

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for 

reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a 

motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 

Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 

1988).

The Court has reviewed Movant’s § 2255 Motion, the March 17 Order, and the 

Motion for Reconsideration. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. Thus, the 

Court will deny Movant’s Motion for Reconsideration. Because the Court believes

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable, the Court will deny 

Movant’s request for a certificate of appealability.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Movant’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Movant[’]s 2255 

Motion and/or for Issuance of Certificate of Appealability” (Doc. 5) is denied. This case 

must remain closed.

(2) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

Case 2:20-cv-00485-MTL--JFM Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Dated this 2nd day of April, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00485-MTL--JFM Document 6 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3