Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00392/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00392-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan Xavier Gloria, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Johnny Tucker, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-0392-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

On June 23, 2005, the Court accepted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely.

Doc. #24. Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion to reargue on July 19,

2005. Docs. ##26, 27. The Court construed Petitioner’s motions as motions for

reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of the habeas petition, and on September 6, 2005,

denied the motions. Doc. #28. On October 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from

judgment. Doc. #29. The Court construed this as a second motion for reconsideration, and

denied the motion. Doc. #30.

Petitioner has now filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Modification of Consent

Decree. Doc. #31. The Court will construe this as a third motion for reconsideration. 

As previously noted in the Court’s orders, motions for reconsideration are disfavored

and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs.

See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26

(9th Cir. 1988). Nor should they ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.

Case 2:04-cv-00392-DGC Document 32 Filed 06/28/06 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 -

The Court will deny Petitioner’s third motion for reconsideration because Petitioner’s

objections do not warrant relief from judgment. Petitioner argues that his sentence was

improper under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 253 (2004). Petitioner also seeks to

introduce evidence concerning his mental health and argues for modification of a consent

decree concerning jail conditions, without specifying the consent decree at issue.

Petitioner clearly could have raised his Blakely and mental health issues in earlier

filings, and the consent decree is not part of this case. The fact remains that Petitioner’s

habeas claim was filed well after the deadline provided by statute and he has not shown that

extraordinary circumstances prevented him from filing on time. Therefore, Petitioner’s third

motion for reconsideration is denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Modification of

Consent Decree (Doc. #31) is denied.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00392-DGC Document 32 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2