Wright 335293 v. Shinn

Opinion

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

9 Montez Lavell Wright, III, No. CV-24-00260-PHX-KML

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner Montez Lavell Wright, III, filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment 16 denying him habeas relief. (Doc. 22.) Construing his motion as seeking reconsideration, it 17 is denied. 18 A motion for reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the court had 19 already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country 20 Store Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 568, 576 (D. Ariz. 2024) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 21 Wright’s motion argues he was unable to respond to the report and recommendation 22 (“R&R”) this court adopted, and that his procedural default in state court was excused 23 because appellate counsel was ineffective. (Doc. 22 at 1-2.) But Wright did file objections 24 to the R&R raising the same claims of cause and prejudice—and more—that he re-urges 25 now. (Doc. 17.) The court considered Wright’s objections and rejected them in its order 26 adopting the R&R, noting he had not shown cause because his claim of ineffective 27 assistance was not “substantial” and, independently, he had not shown prejudice. (Doc. 20 28 at 2.) Wright’s motion offers no basis for revisiting those conclusions. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 3 Dated this 14th day of January, 2025. 4

6 L { AMR * VM. VLA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-