Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration — United States v. Aaron Ashcraft (E.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · No. 2:22-cr-00087-KJM · Doc. 50 · 2024-04-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
 
1 
 
2 
 
3 
 
4 
 
5 
 
6 
 
7 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
8 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
9 
 
10 
 
11 
 
12 
 
13 
 
14 
 
15 
 
16 
 
On February 9, 2024, this court denied defendant Aaron Ashcraft’s motion for 
17 
compassionate release.  Prior Order, ECF No. 44.  The court found defendant did not show 
18 
1) his adult son was incapable of self-care and 2) his son’s caregiver has passed away or has been 
19 
otherwise incapacitated.  Id. at 3.  The court therefore found defendant did not demonstrate 
20 
extraordinary and compelling reasons to warrant compassionate release and did not reach the 
21 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.  Id. at 4.  Defendant now moves for reconsideration of the 
22 
court’s prior order.  See Mot., ECF No. 46.  The government opposes.  Opp’n, ECF No. 49.  The 
23 
motion is denied.   
24 
Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly authorize motions for 
25 
reconsideration, the Ninth Circuit allows parties to file post-judgment motions for reconsideration 
26 
in criminal cases.  United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1047 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).  “No precise 
27 
‘rule’ governs the district court’s inherent power to grant or deny a motion to reconsider a prior 
28 
United States of America, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
Aaron Ashcraft,  
Defendant. 
No. 2:22-cr-00087-KJM 
ORDER 
Case 2:22-cr-00087-KJM   Document 50   Filed 05/01/24   Page 1 of 3

 
 
 
2 
 
ruling in a criminal proceeding.”  United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013).  
1 
It is instead a matter of discretion.  Id. 
2 
Under this District’s Local Rules, a motion for reconsideration must identify “what new or 
3 
different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist that did not exist or were not shown upon 
4 
such prior motion or what other grounds exist for the motion.”  See E.D. Cal. L.R. 430.1(i).  “But 
5 
as is true of motions for reconsideration in civil cases, motions for reconsideration in criminal 
6 
cases are almost always denied when they rest on arguments or evidence the moving party 
7 
previously raised or could have raised and denial would not cause manifest injustice.”  United 
8 
States v. Davis, No. 98-00114, 2021 WL 1122574, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2021), aff’d,  
9 
No. 21-10094, 2022 WL 1090945 (9th Cir. Apr. 12, 2022).   
10 
Reconsideration is not warranted here.  There are no new facts or circumstances that did 
11 
not exist at the time of the original motion, nor changes in controlling law.  Rather, defendant 
12 
provides additional evidence to support his initial motion for compassionate release.  Defendant 
13 
may not supplement his prior motion after this court has already ruled on the motion.  See Cachil 
14 
Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 
15 
(E.D. Cal. 2009) (“[P]arty may not use a motion for reconsideration to . . . present new evidence 
16 
for the first time when it could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”); cf. Frietsch 
17 
v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 1995) (“It is not the purpose of allowing motions for 
18 
reconsideration to enable a party to complete presenting his case after the court has ruled against 
19 
him.”).  Accordingly, the motion is denied. 
20 
Defendant may, however, raise a renewed motion for compassionate release if he is able 
21 
to, based on the following information.  In his renewed motion defendant must address: 
22 
1) whether he has exhausted administrative remedies, 2) what extraordinary and compelling 
23 
reasons exist to warrant the requested reduction, and 3) whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 
24 
sentencing factors weigh in favor of release.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).   
25 
To the extent defendant relies on the same family circumstances to show extraordinary 
26 
and compelling reasons, defendant must be able to show his adult son is “incapable of self-care 
27 
because of a mental or physical disability or a medical condition.”  See U.S.S.G. 
28 
Case 2:22-cr-00087-KJM   Document 50   Filed 05/01/24   Page 2 of 3

 
 
 
3 
 
§ 1B1.13(b)(3)(A).  Although defendant attached his son’s medical records to his most recent 
1 
motion, the court is unable to determine whether his son is incapable of self-care just from these 
2 
records.  See Mot. Attach. A.  For example, the medical records show his son’s diagnosis and the 
3 
treatments he has received.  Id.  However, they do not show what kind of care his son needs and 
4 
whether his conditions are such that he is unable to care for himself.  See id.   
5 
Moreover, defendant must be able to also show “death or incapacitation” of his son’s 
6 
caregiver.  See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A).  Defendant argues his son’s only available caretaker 
7 
is mentally incapacitated and attaches documents he says support this argument.  See Mot. at 2; 
8 
Mot. Attach. B.  However, attachment B is blurry and illegible.  Additionally, it is unclear 
9 
whether defendant’s spouse is the son’s current caregiver, or if not, who is. 
10 
Defendant may file a renewed motion for compassionate release addressing these issues 
11 
within 30 days of receiving this order.  The government’s response shall be filed twenty-one days 
12 
thereafter.  Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be filed within fourteen days of receiving any 
13 
government response.    
14 
This order resolves ECF No. 46. 
15 
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
16 
DATED:  April 30, 2024. 
17 
Case 2:22-cr-00087-KJM   Document 50   Filed 05/01/24   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.caed.410248.50.0.pdf

Size

131,866 bytes

SHA-256

b35e1a2ce585b1cdc062c8f381c8106641e6e0ef287c58c241905cf5d29f5954

Our copy

gov.uscourts.caed.410248.50.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com