Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-00499/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-00499-2/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wesley James Coontz, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0499-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 27). He asks us

to reconsider our order dated April 25, 2008 (doc. 25), where we denied his second amended

petition for writ of habeas corpus because it is time barred. A motion for reconsideration will

be granted only if the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear

error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 389 Orange St. Partners v.

Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Petitioner does not make the necessary showing,

but instead asserts the same arguments that he presented in his objections to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation. We have already carefully considered each of these

arguments and concluded that they are without merit. We decline to revisit them now. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 27). 

DATED this 12th day of May, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-00499-FJM Document 28 Filed 05/12/08 Page 1 of 1