United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
GEORGE R. YOUNG, Petitioner,
CHAE HARRIS, Warden, Respondent.
OPINION & ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 24). For the following reasons,
Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
Consequently, Petitioner's subsequent Motion to Amend his
Petition (Doc. 25) and Supplemental Brief to the Petition are
following is a brief overview of the factual and procedural
history necessary for the current Order. A more detailed
factual history is contained in the Court's Order issued
October 30, 2018.
March 15, 2013, an Ohio jury convicted Petitioner of six
counts of Felonious Assault and one count of Improperly
Discharging a Weapon into a Habitation. For these crimes, the
trial court sentenced Petitioner to 32 years in prison.
February 9, 2018, Petitioner mailed his Petition for habeas
relief. He asserted nine Grounds for Relief. The Court
referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge and on July 31,
2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and
Recommendation, recommending the Court dismiss the Petition
as time-barred and as procedurally defaulted. The Court
adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the
Petition as time-barred on October 30, 2018.
November 21, 2018, Petitioner filed the current Motion for
Reconsideration. He later filed a Motion to Amend his
Petition on November 26, 2018. Months later, he filed a
Supplemental Brief to his Petition.
LAW & ANALYSIS
Court denies Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Motions for reconsideration, though frequently brought, are
granted only in rare and unusual circumstances. Plaskon
Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied Signal, Inc., 904
F.Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995). As such, motions for
reconsideration are generally disfavored:
Although motions to reconsider are not ill-founded
step-children of the federal court's procedural arsenal,
they are extraordinary in nature and, because they run
contrary to notions of finality and repose, should be
discouraged. To be sure, a court can always take a second
look at a prior decision; but it need not and should not do
so in the vast majority of instances, especially
where such motions merely restyle or re-hash the initial
McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mutual of
Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184 (N.D. Ohio 1996) (emphasis
added; internal citations and quotations omitted).
for reconsideration “serve a limited purpose and should
be granted for one of the three reasons: (1) because of an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) because evidence
not previously available has become available; or (3) because
it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or preventing
manifest injustice.” Boler Co. v. Watson &
Chalin Mfg. Inc., 372 F.Supp.2d 1013, 1025 (N.D. Ohio
2004) (quoting General Truck Drivers, Local No. 957 v.
Dayton Newspaper, Inc., 190 F.3d 434, 445 (6th Cir.
1999) (Clay, J. dissenting), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
Petitioner's Motion merely re-hashes the merits of his
case. Petitioner has not directed the Court to any
intervening case law. Nor has Petitioner provided new
evidence that has become available. And finally, Petitioner
does not even say this Court's decision was clear error.
While it is obvious Petitioner disagrees with the outcome, he
cannot recite at length the same arguments he has made time
and time again throughout his prosecution of his case.
See Plaskon Electronic, 904 F.Supp. at 669 (“A
party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
disagreement with the Court's decision, and a
recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the
[C]ourt before rendering its original decision fails to carry
the moving party's burden”). Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration is thus without merit.
the Court denies Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration,
Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Petition and his
Supplemental Brief must also be denied. The Court will not
reconsider its previous Order dismissing the Petition.
Accordingly, there is no ...