Zaragosa-Solis v. Gutierrez

Full title: Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis, Petitioner, v. M. Gutierrez, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Sep 13, 2023

CV-22-00498-TUC-JCH (LCK) (D. Ariz. Sep. 13, 2023)

Opinion

CV-22-00498-TUC-JCH (LCK)

09-13-2023

Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis, Petitioner, v. M. Gutierrez, Respondent.

JOHN C. HINDERAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

JOHN C. HINDERAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are incarcerated pro se Petitioner's "Motion for Clarification of Position" (Doc. 67), and "Objections to Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 70). Defendant responded to each. See Docs. 72, 74.

I. Motion for Clarification

Petitioner asks the Court whether its Order, Doc. 19, granted Respondent permission to transfer Petitioner to USP Terre Haute. Doc. 67 at 1. Respondent responds that the Bureau of Prisons "does not currently plan to transfer Petitioner to USP Terre Haute." Doc. 72 at 1. The Court will therefore deny as moot Petitioner's motion for clarification.

II. Objections to Report and Recommendation ("R&R")

Petitioner raises nine objections to the Court's Order adopting Magistrate Judge Kimmins's R&R. Doc. 70 at 1-10. The Court construes Petitioner's objections as a motion for reconsideration. So construed, the Court will deny Petitioner's motion.

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Ave. Tr., 979 F.3d 1209, 1218 (9th Cir. 2020). A motion for reconsideration must be denied absent "highly unusual circumstances," such as (1) "newly discovered evidence," (2) "clear error," or (3) "an intervening change in the controlling law." 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); see also LRCiv. 7.2(g).

Here, Petitioner primarily repeats arguments raised in opposition to the R&R and elsewhere throughout this case.¹Petitioner has therefore failed to identify newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law.

1 There are a couple exceptions. For example, Petitioner argues the Court clearly erred by failing to consider Prince v. Schriro et al., 2009 WL 1456648 (D. Ariz. May 22, 2009). Doc. 70 at 8-9. Petitioner is mistaken. See Doc. 63 at 7-8. This objection, like the others that do not simply reiterate prior arguments, fails to identify a basis for reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING AS MOOT Petitioner's "Motion for Clarification" (Doc. 67).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Petitioner's "Objections to Order on Report and Recommendation" (Doc. 70).