Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00063/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00063-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adnan Alisic
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 

Adnan Alisic,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

Nos. CV-11-00063-PHX-DGC; 

 CR-06-00717-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

CC

 The Court is in receipt of movant Adnan Alisic’s motion to reconsider the Court’s 

order of February 3, 2012, accepting Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) and denying Alisic’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 18; see Doc. 16. 

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

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 

3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied 

Aabsent 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); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Alisic does 

not meet or even address this high standard. He cites no new law or facts that occurred 

after the Court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. Instead, he re-urges arguments made in his 

objection to the R&R, including arguments the Court already exercised its discretion to 

reject because Alisic had not previously raised them before Judge Aspey. Alisic does not 

Case 2:11-cv-00063-DGC Document 19 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

refute or even discuss the Court’s analysis. In short, Alisic simply disagrees with the 

Court’s denial of his motion. But “[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an 

insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Guillen v. Thompson, No. CV 08-1279-PHXMHM, 2010 WL 3239419, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2010). Nor should reconsideration be 

used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood 

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

IT IS ORDERED that movant Adnan Alisic’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 

18) is denied. 

 Dated this 2nd day of March, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00063-DGC Document 19 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2