IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM E. GRAHAM, CASE NO. 2:20-CV-4847 Petitioner, CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers v.

WARDEN, PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s July 15, 2021, Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 19.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is DENIED. On July 6, 2021, the Court entered final Judgment dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. (Doc. 18.) Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court construes under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner complains that the Court improperly dismissed claim six as procedurally defaulted because he raised that claim in the Ohio Court of Appeals and in a motion for reconsideration and objected to being denied the right to hybrid representation. He again argues that the Court improperly dismissed his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise the issue in an application to reopen the appeal pursuant to Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B) and that the state appellate court unconstitutionally denied him access to the courts when it declined to consider his pro se pleadings. Petitioner also now contends that his defense counsel purposely waived Petitioner’s speedy trial rights so as to pressure him into entering a guilty plea. Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend judgment may be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment based on “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Nyamusevya, No. 2:13-cv-00680,

, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2015) (quoting Intern Corp. v. Henderson,

(6th Cir. 2005)). “The Rule gives a district court the chance ‘to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following’ its decision.” Banister v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––,

(2020) (citing

White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Emp’t Sec.,

(1982)). It allows a district court to correct its own errors, thereby sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings. Esparza v. Anderson, No. 3:96-cv-7434,

, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2013) (citing Howard v. United States,

(6th Cir. 2008)). However, “motions to alter or amend, or for reconsideration, are not intended as a mechanism for a plaintiff to relitigate issues previously considered and rejected, or to submit evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence could have been submitted earlier.” Kittle v. State, No. 2:05-cv-1165,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2007) (citing Helton v. ACS Grp.,

(E.D. Tenn. 1997)); Howard,

. “In

particular, courts will not address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued.” Banister,

. Moreover, in view of the importance of finality in the justice system, a motion to reconsider a final order should be granted only in extraordinary circumstances, such as a complete failure to address an issue or claim. Solly v. Mausser, No. 2:15-cv-956,

at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2016). It is not the function of a motion to reconsider to renew arguments that the Court has already considered and rejected. See Lloyd v. City of Streetsboro, No. 5:18-cv-73,

, at *1 (N.D. Ohio June 14, 2018) (citing McConocha v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio,

(N.D. Ohio 1996)). “When the ‘defendant views the law in a light contrary to that of this Court,’ its ‘proper recourse’ is not by way of a motion for reconsideration but by ‘appeal to the Sixth Circuit.’” Jd. (quoting Dana Corp. v. United States,

(N.D. Ohio 1991)). This Court has already considered, and rejected, the arguments Petitioner now raises here. As previously discussed, the record indicates that Petitioner waived his claims for relief by failing properly to present them to the Ohio courts. He failed to establish cause for his procedural defaults. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 13; Opinion and Order, Doc. 17.) Further, nothing in the record supports Petitioner’s allegation that his attorney conspired against him. The record likewise does not indicate that the denial of the right to a speedy trial establishes a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. In short, Petitioner has provided no grounds to alter the final Judgment against him. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) therefore is DENIED. IT ISSO ORDERED. ALGEN . MARB CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: July 30, 2021