Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00743/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00743-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martin Moreno Ruiz, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Robert E. Jolicover, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-743-PHX-DGC (JJM)

ORDER

On April 9, 2007, Petitioner Martin Moreno Ruiz, who is confined in the El Paso

Service Processing Center in El Paso, Texas, filed a pro se “Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 28 U.S.C. 2255” (the Petition) (Doc. #1). In an April 18, 2007 Order

(Doc. #3), the Court dismissed the Petition because venue does not lie in the District of

Arizona. The Clerk of Court entered judgment accordingly (Doc. #4).

On April 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Expanding - amendment of

complaint” (Doc. #5). In that document, which appeared to have been mailed before

judgment was entered in this case, Petitioner sought to expand or amend his Petition pursuant

to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In an April 30, 2007 Order (Doc. #6),

the Court stated that nothing in the document altered the Court’s conclusion that venue is

inappropriate in this District and that the case should be dismissed rather than transferred.

Case 2:07-cv-00743-DGC--JR Document 10 Filed 05/15/07 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

- 2 -

On April 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reconsideration [of the] Order dated

this 17th day of April, 2007 and Judgment dated this 18th day of April, 2007” (Doc. #7) and

a “Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. #8).

I. Motion for Reconsideration

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Courts in this District have

identified four circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the

moving party has discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the

Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the

factual or legal differences through the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) material factual

events have occurred since the Court’s initial decision; (3) there has been a material change

in the law since the Court’s initial decision; or (4) the movant makes a convincing showing

that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time

of its initial decision. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D.

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court

“‘to rethink what the court had already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders

of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing,

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

The Court has considered Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and finds no basis

to alter its Order. Venue is not appropriate here.

II. Petition for Temporary Restraining Order

Because the Court has dismissed this case based on improper venue and entered

judgment, the Court will deny as moot the petition for temporary restraining order.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #7) is denied.

(2) Petitioner’s Petition for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #8) is denied as

moot.

Case 2:07-cv-00743-DGC--JR Document 10 Filed 05/15/07 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

- 3 -

(3) This case remains dismissed without prejudice. This case must remain

closed.

(4) The Clerk of Court must not accept further filings in this case except those in

furtherance of an appeal.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00743-DGC--JR Document 10 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 3