Pierce v. Obama et al

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING 11 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/5/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

SEAVON PIERCE,

12
13

Case No. 1:14-cv-01992-GSA-HC

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
(ECF No. 11)

14

BARACK OBAMA, et. al.,

15

Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 23, 2015, this Court issued an amended order
19 dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus as duplicative. (ECF No. 9).
20

On February 2, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration, which the

21 Court will consider a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
22 Procedure § 60(b). Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
23
24
25
26
27
28

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on
1

2

an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

3

Petitioner’s arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. Petitioner argues

1

4 that the Court did not consider his amended petition and that the Court can still consider his
5 duplicative claims. On January 22, 2015, this Court issued an order dismissing the petition as
6 duplicative and closing the action. (ECF No. 7). Prior to the order being docketed, Petitioner’s
7 first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus was docketed. (ECF No. 6). The Court
8 considered Petitioner’s first amended petition in the present case, determined that the first
9 amended petition raised the same claims as the original petition in this case, and issued an
10 amended order dismissing the petition as duplicative on January 23, 2015. (ECF No. 9).
11

As stated in the amended order dismissing the petition, the Court has the discretion to

12 dismiss a duplicative later-filed action. See Adams v. California Dept. of Health Services, 487
13 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007). Petitioner’s amended petition in this case raises the same claims
14 as his presently pending petition in a previously filed action, 2:14-CV-02644-AC, and therefore,
15 is duplicative.
16

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

Dated:

February 5, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2