Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00077/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00077-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Neil Rusty Bond, 

Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-03-974-PHX-DGC

No. CV-08-77-PHX-DGC (CRP)

Ninth Circuit No. 10-16891

ORDER

In an order dated November 30, 2010 (Doc. 213), the Court denied Defendant’s

motion for appointment of new appellate counsel (Doc. 210). Defendant has filed a motion

for reconsideration of that order. Doc. 214. The motion will be denied.

Motions for reconsideration “are ‘disfavored’ and will be granted only upon a

showing of ‘manifest error’ or ‘new facts or legal authority that could not have been raised

earlier with reasonable diligence.’” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation

and brackets omitted); see S.E.C. v. Kuipers, No. 09-36016, 2010 WL 3735788, at *3 (9th

Cir. Sept. 21, 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Defendant does not meet (or even address) this high

standard. He cites no new law or fact that occurred after the Court’s decision. Instead, he

re-urges arguments made in his original motion and asks the Court to rethink its analysis.

In short, Defendant simply disagrees with the order denying his request for the appointment

of a seventh attorney. But “[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient

basis for reconsideration.” Guillen v. Thompson, No. CV 08-1279-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL

3239419, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2010).

Case 2:08-cv-00077-DGC-CRP Document 215 Filed 01/11/11 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 -

Defendant states that the Court never ruled on his alternative request for an

“emergency hearing” regarding his mental capacity to represent himself. Doc. 214 at 2. If

Defendant wishes to proceed pro se, he shall file a separate motion to that effect. The Court

will determine whether a hearing is necessary after such motion is filed.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Neil Rusty Bond’s motion for reconsideration

(Doc. 214) is denied.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-00077-DGC-CRP Document 215 Filed 01/11/11 Page 2 of 2