Opinion
CV-19-05258-PHX-DJH
09-08-2021
Craig Murray Jones, Petitioner, v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Craig Murray Jones's (“Petitioner”) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 36) of the Court's Order denying Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file objections to Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf's recommendation (Doc. 33) that his Motions for Release and Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 17) be denied.
I. Background
Petitioner initiated this action on September 23, 2019, by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Doc. 1). On October 7, 2020, while the Petition was pending before Magistrate Judge Metcalf, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Release From Confinement on Recognizance or Surety Pending Adjudication of Habeas Corpus Proceedings; In the Alternative Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (“Motion”) (Doc. 17). On August 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued his Report and Recommendation (“R&R) (Doc. 33). Therein, Judge Metcalf recommends this Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition as untimely; he also recommends that this Court deny the relief sought in Petitioner's Motion. (Id.) Petitioner subsequently asked this Court for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R on the grounds that he was not being provided adequate mental health treatment. (Doc. 34). The Court allowed Petitioner an additional 30 days to file objections to Judge Metcalf's recommendation that his Petition be dismissed but required that any objections with regards to the recommendation that his Motion for Release and Motion for Appointment of Counsel be denied be filed by September 7, 2021. (Doc. 35). Instead of filing an objection by this deadline, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (Doc. 36), in which he states he “suffers from serious documented, diagnosed mental illnesses that interferes with his logical and meaningful connection to things presented to him…” Petitioner further states that he “believed the 30 day extension of time would have covered all issues within the [R&R]” including the recommendations on his Motion. (Id.)
I. Legal Standards
The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). But motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored and should 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); See also Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (holding motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 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.” Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351. Such disagreements should be dealt with in the normal appellate process. See Ramsey v. Arizona, 2006 WL 2711490, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2006).
II. Analysis
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the denial on the grounds that he has “serious documented, diagnosed mental illnesses” and thus should be afforded extra time to object to Judge Metcalf's recommendation that his Motion be denied. (Doc. 36). In doing so, Petitioner repeats the same arguments he made in his Motion for an Extension of Time. (See Doc. 34). Petitioner's failure to raise any new facts that the Court did not already have an opportunity to consider when it denied his previous request for more time is grounds to deny the Motion for Reconsideration. Motorola, Inc., 215 F.R.D. at 586 (motion for reconsideration shall not repeat an argument previously made). Notably, Petitioner makes similar assertions of “deteriorating health” in his Motion for Release, which the Magistrate Judge criticized as lacking in specifics. (Doc. 17). Both Petitioner's request for an extension of time to respond to Magistrate Judge Metcalf's recommendation that his Motion for Release and Motion to Appoint Counsel and motion for reconsideration also lack specifics regarding his health. Petitioner also does not explain how an additional 30 days will allow him to respond to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, i.e., he does not say his mental health issues will be resolved in that time or identify objections he wants to make to Magistrate Judge's legal and factual findings on his two requests that require additional time. Petitioner has shown himself capable of presenting timely and relevant arguments in support of himself throughout these proceedings. While the Court granted Petitioner's request for an extension of time to respond to the Magistrate Judge's more complex and lengthy findings on his Petition, the Court affirms the conclusion that Petitioner should be able to timely file any objection regarding these two discrete rulings before that deadline.
Under the Court's prior Order (Doc. 35), Petitioner's objection to Judge Metcalf's recommendations on his Motion was due on September 7, 2021, and therefore any objection is now late. The Court will nevertheless grant Petitioner a seven-day extension to file his objection. Petitioner is on notice that failure to file an objection by September 15, 2021, may result in the summary affirmance of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation on his Motion (Doc. 17).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 36) is denied. Petitioner's objection to Magistrate Judge Metcalf s recommendation that his Motion (Doc. 17) be denied is due by September 15, 2021.