Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00927/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00927-1/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Brian A. Wilkins, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Steven Lessard, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-927-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Brian A. Wilkins filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody (On Probation)” (Doc. #1).

Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on May 11, 2009 (Doc. #4) and, on May 13, 2009,

lodged a Second Amended Petition (Doc. #6). 

By Order filed June 9, 2009, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to file the Second

Amended Petition and dismissed the Second Amended Petition for failure to exhaust state

court remedies.

On October 8, 2009, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Relief from an Order” in which he

asks that the Court reverse its Order of dismissal and allow Petitioner to file a third amended

petition. Petitioner alleges that he has now exhausted state court remedies.

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,

Case 2:09-cv-00927-MHM--MEA Document 11 Filed 12/07/09 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 -

(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). None of these circumstances is relevant to the

present case and the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion.

If Petitioner wishes to pursue his habeas claims, he must file a new habeas petition in

a newly opened action.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s October 8, 2009 Motion for Relief from an Order

(Doc. #10) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00927-MHM--MEA Document 11 Filed 12/07/09 Page 2 of 2