Wright 335293 v. Shinn

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Montez Lavell Wright, III, No. CV-24-00260-PHX-KML 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., Respondents.

15 Petitioner Montez Lavell Wright, III, filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment denying him habeas relief. (Doc. 22.) Construing his motion as seeking reconsideration, it is denied.

18 A motion for reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 568, 576 (D. Ariz. 2024) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

21 Wright’s motion argues he was unable to respond to the report and recommendation (“R&R”) this court adopted, and that his procedural default in state court was excused because appellate counsel was ineffective. (Doc. 22 at 1-2.) But Wright did file objections to the R&R raising the same claims of cause and prejudice—and more—that he re-urges now. (Doc. 17.) The court considered Wright’s objections and rejected them in its order adopting the R&R, noting he had not shown cause because his claim of ineffective assistance was not “substantial” and, independently, he had not shown prejudice. (Doc. 20 at 2.) Wright’s motion offers no basis for revisiting those conclusions.

1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

3 Dated this 14th day of January, 2025.

6 L { AMR * VM. VLA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 7 United States District Judge _2-