Opinion
No. CV-11-00063-PHX-DGC No. CR-06-00717-PHX-DGC
03-02-2012
Adnan Alisic, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant.
ORDER
The Court is in receipt of movant Adnan Alisic's motion to reconsider the Court's order of February 3, 2012, accepting Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") and denying Alisic's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Doc. 18; see Doc. 16.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration will be denied "absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Alisic does not meet or even address this high standard. He cites no new law or facts that occurred after the Court's denial of his § 2255 motion. Instead, he re-urges arguments made in his objection to the R&R, including arguments the Court already exercised its discretion to reject because Alisic had not previously raised them before Judge Aspey. Alisic does not refute or even discuss the Court's analysis. In short, Alisic simply disagrees with the Court's denial of his motion. But "[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration." Guillen v. Thompson, No. CV 08-1279-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 3239419, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2010). Nor should reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).
IT IS ORDERED that movant Adnan Alisic's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied.
___________
David G. Campbell
United States District Judge