Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dora B. Schriro, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. The Court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment was issued on October 20, 2005. Plaintiff filed the underlying Motion on November 3, 2005. Pursuant to Rule 6, when the time allowed is less than 11 days, weekends shall be excluded in the computation. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion was timely filed.
Case 2:03-cv-01510-ROS Document 33 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 1 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Paul Stocks, Petitioner, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-1510-PHX-ROS ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Motion To Alter/Amend Judgment (Doc. #32).1 Although the Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its orders, Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998).

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

Petitioner's Motion requests reconsideration of the Court's Order in so far as it dismissed Grounds II, III, V, and VII, on grounds that the Court erred on the issues it considered.2 Absent notice of an apparent error of law, such arguments should generally be directed to the Court of Appeals. See id. Because Petitioner raises no new issues, the Motion will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion To Amend/Alter Judgment (Doc. # ) is DENIED.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006.

In his Motion To Amend/Alter Judgment, Petitioner mistakenly refers to Ground VII as Ground VI, which dealt with Insufficient Evidence of Prior Convictions. -2Case 2:03-cv-01510-ROS Document 33 Filed 08/24/2006 Page 2 of 2

2