Pelayo v. United States

Sep 1, 2026
2:24-cv-00815

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration, seeking a certificate of appealability (“COA“) for his petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. No. 27), which the Court denied. (See Dkt. No. 25.) Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

A motion for reconsideration is generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). It is only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court‘s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. As this Court has frequently indicated, reconsideration should not be used to ask it to “rethink what it had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Wilcox v. Hamilton Constr., LLC, 426 F. Supp. 3d 788, 791 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (cleaned up); see, e.g., Brown v. Murphy, 2023 WL 6481566, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2023); Hoffman v. Transworld Sys. Inc., 2019 WL 109437, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Petitioner, in seeking a COA, suggests that his § 2255 petition (implicating Second and Fifth Amendment rights), raises sufficiently novel issues, particularly in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), to warrant further consideration of the claims contained therein. (See generally Dkt. No. 27.) But a COA should only issue if “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim of the denial of a [such] right[s].” United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court could not make this finding when dismissing the petition. (See generally Dkt. No. 25.) Nor can it do so now, on reconsideration. Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the Court committed manifest error; nor does he provide the Court with new facts or legal authority that would alter the prior ruling. See LCR 7(h)(1).

Petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED.

DATED this 1st day of September 2026.

John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE