Martinez v. Hacker-Agnew

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Raul Rene Martinez, No. CV-16-0731-TUC-BGM 9

Petitioner, 10 v. ORDER 11

Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration 15 (Doc. 19). 16 “The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a 17 showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have 18 been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g). 19 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 20 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 21 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 22 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations 23 omitted); see also Bahrs v. Hughes Aricraft Co., 795 F.Supp. 965, 967 (D. Ariz. 1992). 24 “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court ‘to rethink what the court 25 had already thought through—rightly or wrongly[.]’” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 26 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be 27 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances[.]” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 645 28 (citations omitted). Moreover, “[a]rguments that a court was in error on the issues it 1 | considered should be directed to the court of appeals.” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 2) F.Supp. at 1351. 3 Having reviewed the motion to reconsider and the record in this case, the Court 4| finds no basis to depart from its original decision. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 5 | ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED. 6 Dated this 14th day of July, 2020. (Se PX PDO 8 Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald 9 United States Magistrate Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-