CARLIN POWELL v. WARDEN JAY FORSHEY (2023)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's “Request for Reconsideration” filed on January 24, 2023. (ECF No. 23). In the request, Petitioner takes issue with this Court's Order denying his motion to include evidence not included in the state court record. To the extent this request is a motion for reconsideration, Petitioner's request is DENIED.

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders.” Rodriguez v. Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App'x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). The Sixth Circuit has explained that “[d]istrict courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment.” Id. (citation omitted). “Traditionally, courts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D. Ohio 1998)).

A motion for reconsideration is extraordinary in nature because it disturbs the finality of judgment. See Plaskon Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995). Courts should not reconsider prior decisions when the motion for reconsideration simply reiterates previous arguments or presents new arguments that could have been raised during the initial consideration of the issue. Database America, Inc., v. Bellsouth Advertising & Pub. Corp., 825 F.Supp. 1216, 1220 (D.N.J.1993) (citing G-69 v. Degnan, 748 F. Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J.1990)). “Motions for reconsideration are not substitutes for appeal nor are they vehicles whereby a party may present arguments inexplicably omitted in prior proceedings.” Dantz v. Apple Am. Grp., LLC, No. 5:04CV0060, 2006 WL 2850459, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2006) (citation omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and ‘recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.’ ” Id. (citing Database America, Inc., supra.).

Petitioner's request merely reargues his position as to why he believes that this Court should consider the documentary “I Am Evidence” when reviewing his habeas petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met his burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and his request for reconsideration is DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner did not state whether the “Request for Reconsideration” was made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or as an appeal of a magistrate judge's order in a referred case. This Order does not address the Petitioner's request to the extent it is intended as an appeal to the District Judge for review of the Magistrate Judge's previous order.

Carmen E. Henderson United States Magistrate Judge