Brownlee v. Nommono

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING Motions for Reconsideration 19 , 20 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/6/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:15-cv-00625 AWI MJS (HC)
TERRANCE BROWNLEE,

13

ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner,

FOR

[Docs. 19-20]

v.

14

MOTIONS

15
16

LYDIA NOMMONO,
Respondent.

17
18
19
20

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

On September 11, 2015, the undersigned dismissed the petition and declined to
issue a certificate of appealability as to any of the claims of the petition. On September
18 and 24, 2015, Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure § 60(b). (ECF Nos. 19-20.)
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
The Court shall construe the filings as motion to alter or amend the judgment

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 59(e). A motion for reconsideration is treated

28
1

1

as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) if it is filed within the

2

time limit set by Rule 59(e). United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th

3

Cir. 1992). Otherwise, it is treated as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief

4

from a judgment or order. American Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. North American Constr.

5

Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion to alter or amend a judgment

6

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) "must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of

7

the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Petitioner filed the motions 13 days after the

8

judgment was filed. Accordingly, the motions are timely.

9

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

10
11

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:

12

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

13

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have

14

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

15

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or

16

misconduct by an opposing party;

17

(4) the judgment is void;

18

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an

19

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is

20

no longer equitable; or

21

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

22

II.

DISCUSSION

23

In his motions for reconsideration, Petitioner asserts arguments similar, if not

24

identical, to those presented in his petition, i.e., that the Board of Parole Hearings

25

violated his constitutional rights and the terms of his plea bargain by denying him parole.

26

As the Court described in dismissing the petition, the Court has limited authority to

27

review state parole decisions for procedural due process. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct.

28

859, 861-62, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011). Petitioner’s claims related to the substantive
2

1

decisions of the Board. The Court lacks authority to review such decisions. Petitioner’s

2

claims were properly dismissed. Petitioner has not presented any new information in the

3

motions for reconsideration that would put the Court’s rulings in question.

4

Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence, shown clear error, or

5

demonstrated that a change in controlling law warrants amending or altering the

6

judgment.

7

III.

8
9

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motions for reconsideration (Docs. 19-

20) are DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3