Opinion
CASE NO. C14-5829 BHS-KLS
11-24-2014
DARNELL O MCGARY, Petitioner, v. MARK STRONG, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's denial of his request for discovery. Dkt. 15. In the Court's November 12, 2014 Order, it denied Petitioner's motion for discovery because the Court's review of Petitioner's habeas petition is limited to the record that was before the state court and because Mr. McGary had not shown that discovery was otherwise appropriate. Dkt. 12.
Mr. McGary contends that this Court improperly entered its Order before he submitted his reply and asks that the Court review his reply and reconsider its Order. Dkt. 15. The Court has thoroughly reviewed Mr. McGary's reply and finds that his motion for reconsideration should be denied.
Under Local Rule CR7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. The standard has not been met in this case. As previously noted by the Court, Mr. McGary fails to provide specific allegations showing reason to believe that, if the facts are fully developed, he may be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. See e.g., Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969). Mr. McGary argues that unidentified discovery will limit "the extraneous review of over a thousand pages of proceedings" but also contends that "if the court relies solely on the record, it will find that" he is entitled to habeas relief.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 15) is DENIED.
(2) The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.
DATED this 24th day of November, 2014.
/s/_________
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge