(HC) Lipsey v. Pffifer

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING 22 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/4/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

Case No. 1:18-cv-01547-LJO-JDP (HC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
ECF No. 22
CHRISTIAN PFFIFER,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner Christopher Lipsey, Jr., a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas

20

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 23, 2019, this Court issued findings and

21

recommendations that the Court dismiss the petition due to lack of jurisdiction and deny

22

Respondent’s motion to dismiss as moot. (ECF No. 18.) On September 9, 2019, Petitioner filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 19.) Two days later, on September

24
11, 2019, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations, thereby dismissing the case.
25
26

(ECF No. 20.) In its order adopting the findings and recommendations, the Court inadvertently

27

stated that Petitioner did not object to the findings and recommendations. Id. The Court declined

28

to issue a certificate of appealability, and the case was closed. On September 30, 2019, Petitioner
1

1

filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 22.) The court will now address

2

Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 19), along with his motion

3

for reconsideration. (ECF No. 22).

4
II.

OBJECTIONS TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5
In his objections to the findings and recommendations, Petitioner requests this Court to

6
7

stay proceedings in his habeas claim until the resolution of his separate state court speedy trial

8

claim. (ECF No. 19). The Court rejects Petitioner’s request to stay the proceedings because this

9

Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his habeas claim. Petitioner is serving an indeterminate sentence

10
11

of forty-seven years to life in prison. See People v. Lipsey, No. B216787, 2010 WL 4886219, at
*1 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2010). In 2017, a criminal proceeding commenced against Petitioner for

12
13
14

assault. ECF No. 11-1 at 1-3; ECF No. 11-2 at 1-8. In his habeas petition, Petitioner only
challenged the validity of the ongoing criminal assault proceeding. (ECF No. 1). Because

15

Petitioner has only challenged this most recent criminal proceeding and has not challenged his

16

initial criminal conviction which carries the forty-seven years to life sentence, success in

17

Petitioner’s habeas claim would not necessarily result in an earlier release for Petitioner. (ECF

18

No. 18). As explained in the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18), when the success of a

19
habeas corpus petition would not necessarily result in an earlier release for the Petitioner, this
20
21

Court lacks jurisdiction to grant habeas relief. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir.

22

2016) (en banc).

23

III.

24
25
26

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(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)

27
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
28
2

1

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.

2

Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

3

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v.

4
Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The
5
6

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id.

7

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Local Rule 230(j) requires Petitioner to show

8

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

9

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

10
11

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for granting a motion for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22),

12
13
14

Petitioner makes the same request made in his objections to the findings and recommendations:
that his habeas claim be stayed pending resolution of his state court claim. (ECF No. 19.)

15

Petitioner also asks this court to take notice of his filing of objections to the findings and

16

recommendations. (ECF No. 22.) Petitioner has failed to provide any arguments in his motion

17

for reconsideration that demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction over his case.

18

Petitioner has not shown “surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has not shown the existence

19
of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the judgment is either
20
21

void or satisfied; and, finally, he has not presented any other reasons justifying relief from

22

judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In addition, Petitioner has not shown “new or different facts or

23

circumstances.” Local Rule 230(j). Petitioner’s motion did raise the Court’s “mistake” or

24

“inadvertence” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)) in its order adopting finding and recommendations.

25

(ECF No. 20.) This Court inadvertently stated that Petitioner had not raised any objections to the

26

findings and recommendations. Id. However, the Court has now fully addressed Petitioner’s

27
objections, correcting the inadvertence.
28
3

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration, filed on September 30, 2019, is DENIED.

4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 4, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10

No. 206

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4