Teresa-Molina v. Strada ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 10 Victor Teresa-Molina, No. CV-19-02154-PHX-DJH 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v. 13 Frank Strada, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s second Motion for Reconsideration 17 (Doc. 17). On January 14, 2020, having received no Objections from the parties, the Court 18 adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) and dismissed 19 Petitioner’s habeas petition. (See Doc. 13). Nearly six months later, on June 1, 2020, 20 Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 15). On July 21, 2020, the Court denied 21 Petitioner’s that request as untimely (Doc. 16). On August 5, 2020, Petitioner filed his 22 second Motion for Reconsideration, which again seeks reconsideration of the Court’s 23 Order dismissing his habeas petition (Doc. 17) (arguing that he was not “permitted to 24 demonstrate that the majority of the all that was said was pre-fabricated violating the United States Constitution”). 25 As the Court noted in July 21, 2020 Order (Doc. 16), motions for reconsideration 26 are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. 27 Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995); Drake v. City of Eloy, 2016 WL 67519, 28 *1 (D. Ariz. 2016). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 4\| Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions || should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “to rethink what the court had already || thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351. 7 The Court has examined Petitioner’s second Motion for Reconsideration under 8 || these standards and does not find cause to revisit its prior ruling dismissing his habeas 9 || petition. Petitioner has also failed to establish cause excusing the untimeliness of his first 10 || Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17) is || DENIED. This case shall remain closed. 13 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2020. 14 15 fe SZ 16 norable'Diang/4. Hurmetewa 17 United States District Fudge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-