Whitfield v. Gutierrez

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
L Brian Whitfield,
Petitioner,
v.
Mark Gutierrez,
Respondent.
No. CV-25-00443-TUC-JGZ (MSA)
ORDER
On February 25, 2026, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 10.) The Court found the Petition premature
because Petitioner sought application of First Step Act (“FSA”) time credits that he had
not yet earned and that depended on future events, including continued participation in
qualifying programming and future accrual of credits during prerelease custody. (Id. at 3.)
On March 9, 2026, Petitioner filed the pending Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Dismissing Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 12.) Petitioner asserts that the Court
misunderstood his claim. According to Petitioner, he is not seeking application of
speculative future FSA credits, but is challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ present sentence-
execution methodology. (Id. at 6–7) Petitioner contends that the BOP’s calculation method
fails to give operative effect to FSA credits that continue to accrue during prerelease
custody, resulting in Petitioner being held in secure custody longer than federal law
permits. (Id. at 6–7, 9) Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its dismissal order, require
Respondents to answer, appoint counsel, expedite review, and issue a certificate of
Case 4:25-cv-00443-JGZ--MSA Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
appealability.
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,
or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be
used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought
through.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel
Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration
“may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could
reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,
229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
Petitioner has not shown that reconsideration is warranted. Petitioner’s Motion
largely repeats or reframes his prior arguments concerning the BOP’s calculation and
application of FSA time credits. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to
reargue matters already decided or to present the same arguments in a different form. See
Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz.
2003). In the Petition, Petitioner argued the BOP refused to correctly calculate and apply
FSA credits for the entirety of his “term of imprisonment,” including time in prerelease
custody; that a proper calculation would make him eligible for immediate transfer to
prerelease custody; and the BOP’s methodology denies him continued earning while in
prerelease custody and unlawfully prolongs his imprisonment in a BOP-operated
institution. (Doc. 1.) The Court considered those arguments and dismissed the Petition
because Petitioner’s asserted entitlement to earlier prerelease placement depended on
credits not yet earned and future circumstances that had not yet occurred. (Doc. 10.)
Petitioner’s present characterization of his claim as a challenge to current BOP
methodology does not change that conclusion. The Petition itself framed the dispute as a
Case 4:25-cv-00443-JGZ--MSA Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
challenge to the BOP’s calculation method and asserted that the method failed to account
for FSA credits allegedly available during prerelease custody. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner’s
additional arguments concerning ripeness, irreparable harm, habeas jurisdiction, agency
action, the BOP’s obligation to follow its own rules, ultra vires review, and Loper Bright
likewise do not identify manifest error, newly discovered facts, or intervening controlling
authority. Petitioner’s disagreement with the Court’s prematurity analysis is not a basis for
reconsideration. See Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338,
1341 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining that dissatisfaction with a court’s order or belief that the
court was wrong is not an adequate basis for relief).
Because reconsideration is not warranted, Petitioner’s requests for expedited
consideration, appointment of counsel, and an order requiring Respondents to answer will
be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12) is denied.
Dated this 29th day of June, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00443-JGZ--MSA Document 13 Filed 06/29/26 Page 3 of 3