Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01949/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01949-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Arnold
Respondent
Jeramian Parnell
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERAMIAN PARNELL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

E. ARNOLD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1949 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2016, this court dismissed petitioner’s application for 

a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to filing a civil rights action, denied several other 

motions and requests, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA). ECF No. 20. 

Judgment was duly entered. ECF No. 21. Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of that part 

of the order that declined to issue a COA. ECF No. 22. 

 Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, Frito-Lay 

of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Canas, 92 F.R.D. 384, 390 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1981), considerations of 

judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a party 

seeking reconsideration of a district court's order must brief the “new or different facts or 

circumstances [which] were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for 

the motion.” The rule derives from the “law of the case” doctrine, which provides that the 

Case 2:15-cv-01949-KJM-DB Document 23 Filed 01/06/17 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

decisions on legal issues made in a case “should be followed unless there is substantially different 

evidence . . . new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would 

result in injustice.” Handi Investment Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 653 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1981); 

see also Waggoner v. Dallaire, 767 F.2d 589, 593 (9th Cir. 1985). 

 Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or 

amendment of a judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the 

unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which 

might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 

1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); 

Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings 

“reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial 

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009. “A motion for reconsideration should not be 

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 

law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 

2009). 

Petitioner’s motion does not demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from the order 

declining to issue a COA. In seeking reconsideration, petitioner offers no different evidence, nor 

does he establish error in the challenged decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is denied. 

DATED: January 5, 2017. 

Case 2:15-cv-01949-KJM-DB Document 23 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2