Stedcke v. Shinn

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 William R Stedcke, No. CV-20-00346-TUC-RCC

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 David Shinn, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Petitioner William R. Stedcke's Motion to Reconsider 16 Order Issued 4-12-22 (Doc 45). (Doc. 46.) On April 12, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner's 17 request for a 60-day extension to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and 18 Recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. 45.) The Court advised Petitioner that "because 19 disposition of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 will 20 resolve the discovery and evidentiary issues highlighted in Petitioner's Motion for 21 Extension of Time (see Doc. 33), the Court will deny objection as to the Magistrate Judge's 22 Order denying Petitioner's Motion for Discovery and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing." 23 (Id.) Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the latter part of the Order on the grounds that it 24 will serve judicial economy as well as his due process rights to be permitted to object to 25 the R&R's findings regarding Petitioner's motions for discovery and for an evidentiary 26 hearing. (Doc. 46.) 27 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 28 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Granting such 1 a motion may occur when the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) 2 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 3 intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, 4 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration need not be granted 5 if it asks the district court merely “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through 6 – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the 7 Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). The motion 8 is not a means to raise arguments that could have been raised in earlier proceedings, Kona 9 Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), nor to reargue the same 10 matter, Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. 11 Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with the court’s determination is not reason enough to 12 warrant reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. 13 Haw. 1988). 14 Here, Petitioner has not shown that reconsideration is required. Indeed, the Court's 15 Order does not necessarily prevent Petitioner from, as he requests, being "allowed to file 16 one pleading in which he states all of his objections to the R&R, including the Magistrate's 17 conclusions regarding Petitioner's motions for discovery and for an evidentiary hearing." 18 (Doc. 46 (emphasis in original).) The Court stated that resolution of Petitioner's Petition 19 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, upon consideration of the R&R and any objections filed, will 20 resolve any discovery or evidentiary issues; thus, the "Court will deny objection as to the 21 Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 43) denying Petitioner's Motion for Discovery and Motion 22 for Evidentiary Hearing." (Doc. 45 (emphasis added).) 23 Therefore, notwithstanding the Court's Order, Petitioner may file a written objection 24 as to any of the Magistrate Judge's findings in the R&R. To the extent that the evidence 25 Petitioner sought through discovery and an evidentiary hearing is relevant to the Magistrate 26 Judge's R&R findings regarding (1) whether Petitioner's due process claims are technically 27 exhausted but procedurally defaulted or (2) whether Petitioner's IAC claims have merit, 28 Petitioner may raise relevant objections to this Court. Petitioner may not independently 1 || object to the Magistrate Judge's Order denying the motion for discovery and evidentiary 2|| hearing. If Petitioner can persuade this Court that the Magistrate Judge's findings contained in the R&R were in error with regard to procedural default or the merits of his claims, the 4|| Court will address whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate at that time. 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider Order Issued 4-12-22 (Doc 45) is DENIED. (Doc. 46.) 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2022. 9 10 fl Dp i ST (rl _— - V2 Honorable Raner ©. Collins 13 senior United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-