Merrick v. Ryan ( 2019 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Anthon y James Merrick, ) No. CV-19-00172-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Charles L. Ryan, et al., ) 12 ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 On September 12, 2019, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine’s 16 Report & Recommendation and dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 17 (Doc. 64). Petitioner has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 66). 19 Reconsideration is disfavored and “appropriate only in rare circumstances.” 20 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Motions for 21 Reconsideration are “not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their 22 original briefs,” nor should such motions be used to ask the Court to rethink its previous 23 decision. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581 (D. Ariz. 24 2003). 25 The Court may grant a motion under Rule 59(e) if the district court is presented with 26 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, the initial decision was manifestly 27 unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 28 Cty., Or. V. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court finds that 1 | Petitioner’s motion does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e). Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment 3 | pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 66) is denied. 4 Dated this 18th day of October, 2019. 5 6 7 LRG 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28