Barger v. CDCR et al
Filing
10
ORDER DENYING Motion for Relief From Judgment 9 , 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
GARY DALE BARGER,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 1:17-cv-01066-DAD-MJS
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT
CDCR and KERN VALLEY STATE
PRISON,
(Doc. No. 9)
Respondents.
Petitioner is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas
18
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On November 17, 2017, this court issued an order adopting the
19
findings and recommendations of the assigned magistrate judge, dismissing the petition as
20
successive, and, to the extent petitioner sought to state civil rights claims, dismissing those claims
21
without prejudice to petitioner bringing an appropriate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No.
22
7.) Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment on December 1, 2017, which the court
23
interprets as a motion brought under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which he
24
asserts that this court lacks jurisdiction over this case. (Doc. No. 9.)
25
Petitioner’s assertion provides no basis for reconsideration of the court’s prior order. This
26
court lacks jurisdiction to consider successive habeas petitions that have not yet been authorized
27
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 838 (9th Cir. 2013).
28
Therefore, even if the court lacked jurisdiction for the reasons petitioner asserts, the judgment of
1
1
the court would have been the same: petitioner’s habeas action would have been dismissed,
2
because this court had no jurisdiction to consider a successive petition. Therefore, there is
3
nothing to alter or amend in the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Spirtos v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
4
No. CV 02-8798-RGK (AIWx), 2004 WL 5803850, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2004) (noting a
5
motion under Rule 59 “must seek a substantive change that would result in a substantive
6
alteration of the judgment rather than just a clerical correction or change in a purely procedural
7
matter”).
8
9
10
11
Accordingly, petitioner’s December 1, 2017 motion for relief from judgment (Doc. No. 9)
is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 20, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?