Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

WO

SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CR 03-0942-PHX-SMM No. CV 05-1924-PHX-SMM (MEA) ORDER

9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 11 Carlos Verdugo-Zazueta, 12 Defendant/Movant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Carlos Verdugo-Zazueta ("Movant"), who is confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California, filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and an addendum. (Docs.# 95, 97.)1 The Court summarily dismissed the motion as supplemented pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. Movant has filed a motion for reconsideration. (Doc.# 100.) That motion will be denied. Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or its initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court "to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly." Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be directed to the court

"Doc.#" refers to the docket number of documents filed in the criminal case.
Document 101 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cr-00942-SMM--MEA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992). Further, a motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle for a party to raise arguments not included in his original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Movant seeks reconsideration on the grounds that he has not received any legal assistance since his sentencing, that a "lackadaisical Lawyer contributed to his sentence," that he never understood the plea bargain and merely answered yes as he was advised to do by his lawyer, that he did not comprehend the colloquy or plea bargain because he does not understand much English and that he did not understand the waivers to which he agreed. (Doc.# 100 at 2.) Most of these arguments were not previously raised and are not properly presented for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. See Northwest Acceptance, 841 F.2d at 925-26. Movant otherwise does not cite newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, or establish clear error. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is denied. (Doc.# 100.) DATED this 2nd day of November, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cr-00942-SMM--MEA Document 101 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 2 of 2