Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01379/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01379-6/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN E. RANSOM, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-01379 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #23]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 12, 2006, the undersigned issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s

Finding and Recommendation, denied the petition and entered judgment for Respondent. On

December 21, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 

DISCUSSION

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new

arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the court to th

rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116

Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 24 Filed 02/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

(D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the

Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water

Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed to the

discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987);

Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth th

facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See,

e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in

part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Rule 59(e), any th

motion to alter or amend judgment shall be filed no later than ten days after entry of judgment. Rule

59(e), however, is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

(9 Cir.2000). th

In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner appears to contend that he is entitled to longer

tolling of the limitation period because Petitioner’s claims were pending in several civil rights

actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. A motion for reconsideration is not the proper avenue for

raising legal theories that could have been, but were not, raised before the court issued the order for

which reconsideration is sought. Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of

Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902, 912 (9 Cir.1995).; In re Agric. Research & Tech. Group, Inc., 916 th

F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir.1990). Regardless, there is no authority for the proposition that a civil rights

action can serve to equitably toll the statute of limitations in a habeas corpus action. Even if it

could, the court cannot find tolling in this action because too little information is provided for the

court to determine that Petitioner had no way to proceed with his habeas corpus petitions until the

civil rights case was resolved. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 24 Filed 02/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01379-AWI-LJO Document 24 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 3