Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02226/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02226-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fortino Alvarez, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Rebecca Kisto, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 08-2226-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner Fortino Alvarez, who is confined in the Federal Correctional InstitutionPhoenix, filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person

in Federal Custody and paid the filing fee. By Order filed December 23, 2008, the Court

required Respondent to answer the Petition and denied Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment

of Counsel.

On January 5, 2009, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the

Court’s denial of appointment of counsel. Petitioner states that he has difficulty reading and

writing and requires assistance for filing court documents.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is

appropriate if 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

Case 2:08-cv-02226-DGC Document 8 Filed 02/04/09 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 -

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). 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 Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va.

1983)).

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s filings in this action finds that Petitioner has

adequately articulated his claims and that the legal issues involved are not inherently

complex. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (the

determination of whether to appoint counsel is guided by an assessment of petitioner’s

ability to articulate his claim, the complexity of the legal issues, and the likelihood of success

on the merits). The Court will therefore deny Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and

again declines to appoint counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s January 5, 2008 Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. #5) is denied.

DATED this 4th day of February, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02226-DGC Document 8 Filed 02/04/09 Page 2 of 2