Najar 033735 v. Thornell

Opinion

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

9 Tommy G Najar, No. CV-23-00207-TUC-JCH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. 19. Petitioner asks 16 the Court to reconsider “the Magistrate R&R or grant miscarriage of justice on ground of 17 inefficient consult.” Id. at 1. Petitioner requests the Court refer the matter back to the 18 magistrate judge to take into consideration that Petitioner did not receive effective counsel 19 in the state court. Id. 20 A motion for reconsideration must be denied absent “highly unusual 21 circumstances,” such as (1) “newly discovered evidence,” (2) “clear error,” or (3) “an 22 intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 23 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); see also LRCiv. 7.2(g). A motion for reconsideration “may not 24 be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 25 have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 26 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is not the place to repeat argument 27 previously made in support of a previous motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. 28 Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Neither is mere disagreement with 1 || a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 3 The Court already conducted a review of the R&R and found Magistrate Judge 4|| Kimmins’s reasoning sound and correct. See Doc. 17. Petitioner already raised the issue □□ that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in state court. Doc. 1 at 4. And he made || no objection to the R&R’s finding that the state court imposed a procedural bar on this 7\| claim. Compare Doc. 12 at 6 with Doc. 15. Petitioner also raised no objections to the 8 || R&R’s finding that he failed to demonstrate a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if his claims were not addressed on the merits. Compare Doc. 12 at 6-7 with Doc. 15. 10 || Motions for reconsideration are not an opportunity for a party “to get a second bite at the 11 || apple,” Van Derheydt v. Cnty. of Placer, 32 F. App'x 221, 223 (9th Cir. 2002), or to ask a || court “to rethink what the court had already thought through—trightly or wrongly.” 13 || Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (citation 14|| omitted). 15 Petitioner does not allege new evidence, clear error, or new law. Instead, he seeks to relitigate the merits of his claims. The Court already addressed the merits of Petitioner’s 17 || claims and will not do so again. 18 The Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied. 19 SO ORDERED. 20 Dated this 7th day of August, 2025. 21 22 fl . | HK Aa— / / John C. Hinderaker _/United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

_2-