Vera v. Gipson

Filing 19

ORDER DEEMING Petitioner's 17 Objections to be a Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 17 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/20/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11 GUILLERMO VERA,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00814-AWI-SKO-HC

12

ORDER DEEMING PETITIONER’S
OBJECTIONS (DOC. 17) TO BE A MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

13

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 17)

14
15

CONNIE GIPSON,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
20 U.S.C. § 2254.
21

I.

22

On November 18, 2013, Petitioner filed objections to findings

Background

23 and recommendations that issued on July 16, 2013 (doc. 7), and were
24 subsequently adopted by the District Judge on November 12, 2013.
25 Objections to the findings and recommendations had been due on
26 October 22, 2013; thus, Petitioner’s purported objections were late
27 by almost a month.

Petitioner did not seek an extension of time to

28 file late objections, and he does not advert to the untimeliness of
1

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

his objections.

However, he asserts that he suffered delays and

obstruction in access to the law library; limited ability to speak,
write, and understand English; and the absence of counsel.

In

preparing legal documents, he has relied on the assistance of other
prisoners with knowledge of the English language and the law.
The Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations issued in
the routine process of the Court’s screening the Petitioner’s
petition.

Petitioner’s petition remains pending insofar as

Petitioner alleges that violations of his right to due process of
law occurred in the course of parole suitability proceedings, such
as defects in notice and the opportunity to review records and to be
heard.

However, Petitioner’s other claims either related to

conditions of confinement (access to the courts and interference
with outgoing mail) or were based solely on state law (failure to
follow the order of a state commissioner and failure to grant a
default judgment in a state court habeas corpus proceeding).
II.

Deeming the Objections to be a Motion for Reconsideration

A court has inherent power to control its docket and the
disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for both
the court and the parties.

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1992).

In the interest of the efficient administration of

justice, the Court exercises its discretion to consider Petitioner’s
untimely objections as a motion to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s
findings and recommendations.
II.

Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9

amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) if it is filed within the
time limit set by Rule 59(e).

982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir. 1992).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27

Otherwise, it is treated as a

motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from a judgment
or order.

American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American

Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 989-99 (9th Cir. 2001).

A motion to

alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”

Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e).

10
11

United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc.,

A.

Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

Petitioner does not appear to state grounds sufficient to
warrant relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), which is
appropriate when there are highly unusual circumstances, the
district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the
district court committed clear error, or a change in controlling law
intervenes.

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v.

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

To avoid being

frivolous, such a motion must provide a valid ground for
reconsideration.

See, MCIC Indemnity Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d

500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986).
Here, there has been no demonstration of unusual circumstances,
newly discovered evidence, or intervening change in controlling law.
Further, the dismissal of Petitioner’s petition was not clearly
erroneous.

Because the dismissed claims related to conditions of

confinement or were based solely on stated law, the Magistrate Judge
correctly determined that the claims should be dismissed without

28 leave to amend.

The Court notes that Petitioner is free to seek
3

1
2
3
4
5
6

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to the conditions
of confinement of which he complained in his habeas corpus petition;
however, the Court does not review claims concerning conditions of
confinement in this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In summary, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to
rule 59(e) will be denied.

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27

B.

Relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the
reconsideration of final orders of the district court.

The rule

permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or
judgment on grounds including but not limited to 1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 2) newly discovered
evidence; 3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; or 4) any other reason justifying relief from the operation
of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The motion for

reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time, and in some
instances, within one year after entry of the order.

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(c).
Rule 60(b) generally applies to habeas corpus proceedings.
See, Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-36 (2005).

Although the

Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order, Barber
v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994), motions for
reconsideration are disfavored.

A party seeking reconsideration

must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision and
offer more than a restatement of the cases and arguments considered
by the Court before rendering the original decision.

United States

28 v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).
4

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

Motions to reconsider pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) are committed to the
discretion of the trial court, Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460
(9th Cir. 1983), which can reconsider interlocutory orders and redetermine applications because of an intervening change in
controlling law, the availability of new evidence or an expanded
factual record, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice, Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield,

634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in
part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Local Rule 230(j) provides that whenever any motion has been
granted or denied in whole or in part, and a subsequent motion for
reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged different set
of facts, counsel shall present to the Judge or Magistrate Judge to
whom such subsequent motion is made an affidavit or brief, as
appropriate, setting forth the material facts and circumstances
surrounding each motion for which reconsideration is sought,
including information concerning the previous judge and decision,
what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist
which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, what
other grounds exist for the motion, and why the facts or
circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.
Here, Petitioner’s objections generally relate to Petitioner’s
conditions of confinement; thus, they, provide no legal or factual
basis that would indicate that Petitioner is entitled to relief
pursuant to Rule 60(b).

Petitioner has not shown any law or facts

that reflect any abuse of discretion, clear error, or manifest

28 injustice.
5

1
2
3
4

Accordingly, it is ordered that:
1) Petitioner’s objections are DEEMED to be a motion for
reconsideration directed to the District Judge; and
2) Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated: November 20, 2013
8

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
6