Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02104/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02104-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Richard Butts
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Richard Butts, 

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Defendant/Movant.

No. CR05-1127 PHX DGC

 CV10-2104-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 On May 20, 2011, pro se Petitioner Paul Richard Butts filed an objection to this 

Court’s April 29 order denying habeas relief (Doc. 19). Doc. 21. The Court will treat the 

filing as a motion for reconsideration. In re 1982 Sanger, 738 F.2d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 

1984) (“The moving party’s label for its motion is not controlling. Rather, the court will 

construe it, however styled, to be the type proper for relief requested.”). 

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare 

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 

1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). A motion for reconsideration will be denied 

“absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that 

could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Ross, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2. Nor should reconsideration be used 

to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see Northwest 

Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 22 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

Finally, “[a]bsent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no 

later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the Order that is the subject of 

the motion.” LRCiv. 7.2(g)(2). Where service of the order was achieved by mail, a court 

adds three (3) days to this deadline, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), for a total of 17 days. 

 Petitioner’s motion is untimely under LRCiv. 7.2(g)(2), having been filed 21 days 

after the order it seeks to reconsider and having failed to show good cause for the late 

filing. Moreover, after considering all of the arguments made in the motion, the Court 

concludes the motion fails to show manifest error and fails to show new facts or 

authority. The motion will therefore be denied on both grounds. Although the Court 

need not discuss in detail each argument made by the motion, the Court briefly will 

address three of the arguments. 

 First, Petitioner argues that “the District Court seems to be dismissing all his 

claims without reading his motions and without cause.” Doc. 21 at 1. Petitioner appears 

to excerpt the following statement from the Court’s order as a basis for reaching this 

conclusion: “Petitioner filed a motion requesting a COA, but does not make specific 

objections to the R&R’s recommendation.” Id. This excerpt relates to the R&R’s 

recommendation regarding the certificate of appealability (“COA”), not to the 

recommendations on the substantive merits. The Court reviewed the substantive merits 

de novo. Doc. 19 at 2:8-10 (“Petitioner objects that the R&R’s findings were frivolous 

and failed to respond to his arguments. . . . Although the objection is somewhat general, 

the Court will engage in de novo review of the R&R.”). 

 Second, Petitioner argues that this Court erred in deciding that Petitioner’s factual 

basis for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was a citation from the trial court 

excerpted without context or reference to the record. Doc. 21 at 2. Petitioner urges that 

the excerpt was from page 92, line 6, and was made during closing argument in the 

suppression hearing. Id. Petitioner misunderstands the Court’s decision. The flaw in 

Petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim was not the technical failure to cite to a transcript 

page: the flaw is that the trial court’s statement “You didn’t even put on any evidence” 

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 22 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

does not necessarily show a viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The trial 

court’s statement was cited by Petitioner without context or reference to the record. The 

transcript clearly shows the judge was not berating Petitioner’s counsel for failing to put 

on evidence, but rather was noting that counsel introduced no evidence to support the 

general argument that Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated such that the 

exclusionary rule was triggered. Doc. 11-2 at 90. Petitioner does not show that such 

evidence existed and that his attorney failed to present it. In fact, the evidence of which 

Petitioner complains – i.e., evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by virtue of the 

prosecutor telling an agent to execute a warrant one day later than the date on the warrant 

– was introduced by the prosecution (Doc. 11-2 at 25-26) and was therefore before the 

trial judge. Petitioner clearly cited the trial court’s statement without context or reference 

to the record. 

 Third, in urging reconsideration of the denial of a COA, Petitioner argues that 

“[r]easonable [j]urists could differ as to whether counsel was ineffective by refusing to 

argue at any point or in any motion the ob[v]ious abuses of power and misconduct of Ms. 

Sexton.” Doc. 21 at 2. This argument does not present new facts or law, and Petitioner 

has failed to show that the Court’s denial of a COA was manifest error in light of the 

record and the arguments made by Petitioner’s motions. 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 21) is denied. 

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 22 Filed 06/20/11 Page 3 of 3