Amezcua v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 11 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/2017. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAUL AMEZCUA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-00963-DAD-SAB

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
(Doc. No. 11)

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a federal prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

17
18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This court issued an order on November 17, 2017

19

adopting findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be construed as a motion

20

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in United States v. Amezcua, No. 1:93-cr-05046-DAD-1, and

21

therefore be dismissed as successive. (Doc. No. 9.) Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration

22

of that order, maintaining that a Ninth Circuit decision in a case referred to by petitioner as Hood

23

allowed an action similar to his to proceed under § 2241. (Doc. No. 11.) No citation or full case

24

name was provided by petitioner to the cited case, and the court has been unable to locate the case

25

to which petitioner is referring. Absent any further information, there is no cause for the court to

26

reconsider its prior order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, 60; United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134

27

F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (noting “[a] motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle

28

/////
1

1

to reargue the motion”) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856

2

(D.N.J. 1992)). Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 11) is denied.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

December 20, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2