Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03362/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03362-2/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

CLINTON JOSEPH SLONE, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

DORA B. SCHRIRO, Attorney General,

State of Arizona,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3362-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Petitioner Clinton Joseph Slone’s motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s December 27, 2006 order adopting the July 5, 2006 Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan. (Dkt. #15). After

consideration of Petitioner’s motion, the Court issues the following order.

On January 11, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s December 27, 2006 order pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure (“FRCP”). FRCP 60(b) “provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of

(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a

void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances

which would justify relief.” Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1985);

see Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

Cir. 1993) (“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

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

Case 3:05-cv-03362-MHM Document 22 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”). A motion

for reconsideration may not be used to re-litigate old matters or to raise arguments or

present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. See, e.g., Collins

v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing Northwest

Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988)); 1

Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1 at 127-28. As

such, courts only grant motions for reconsideration in rare circumstances. See Sullivan v.

Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 308-09 (D.Ariz. 1992).

Petitioner does not allege that the controlling law has changed since the Court

rendered its initial decision. Rather, Petitioner argues that the Court committed clear

error and acted manifestly unjust by adopting Magistrate Judge Duncan’s July 5, 2006

Report and Recommendation as the order of the Court. However, the Court notes that its

December 27, 2006 order denied Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus on the basis that it

was barred by the statute of limitations and not tolled by the doctrine of equitable

estoppel (Dkt. #13, pp.3-4). Petitioner does not appear to address this basis for rejecting

his petition for habeas corpus in his motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. #15). Thus,

Petitioner’s motion does not appear to in fact seek reconsideration of the Court’s reasons

for rejecting his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

In addition, Petitioner’s arguments merely reiterate, although more in-depth, the

arguments set forth in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. #1). These arguments

were considered by Magistrate Judge Duncan in his Report and Recommendation, as well

as in the Court’s subsequent order adopting that Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. #11,

pp. 3-4; Dkt. #13, pp. 3-4). As such, Petitioner is not entitled to reconsideration of these

arguments. Collins, 252 F.Supp.2d at 938. A motion for reconsideration cannot be used

to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through merely because a

party disagrees with the Court’s decision. Id. (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32

F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz. 1998). Such disagreements should be dealt with in the

Case 3:05-cv-03362-MHM Document 22 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

normal appellate process, and not on a motion for reconsideration. See Database Am.,

Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ’g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J. 1993).

The instant action does not meet any of the narrow instances in which

reconsideration is appropriate. The moving party must show more than a mere

disagreement with the Court’s decision; the Court should not grant a motion for

reconsideration unless there is need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

See, e.g., Database Am., Inc., 825 F. Supp. at 1220; Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc. v.

Mitchell-Jackson, 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983). As such, the Court finds that

Petitioner has failed to set forth sufficient grounds to cause the Court to reconsider its

December 27, 2006 order.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Dkt.

#15).

DATED this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 3:05-cv-03362-MHM Document 22 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3