September 16, 2014
LONNELL REGINALD WIDEMAN, #A0180563, Petitioner,
WARDEN TODD THOMAS, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge
On September 15, 2014, Petitioner Lonnell Reginald Wideman filed a document entitled, “Application for Certificate of Appealability from District Court.” Dkt. No. 18. In that document, Wideman seeks a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the Court’s September 5, 2014 Order (Dkt. No. 16) that adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny Wideman’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. However, within the Court’s September 5, 2014 Order, the Court already addressed and denied Wideman’s request for a certificate of appealability. Consequently, the Court construes Wideman’s most recent application as a motion for reconsideration of the previous denial of a certificate of appealability.
There are three grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572 (D. Haw. 1988).
Wideman’s most recent filing provides no reason for this Court to reconsider its September 5, 2014 order denying the certificate of appealability. Accordingly, Wideman’s application for a certificate of appealability, construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.