Moore v. Clark

Filing 59

ORDER signed by District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on 6/4/10, ORDERING denying petitioner's 56 Motion for Certificate of Appealability and 57 Motion for Reconsideration. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This matter comes before the court on the following two motions filed by Petitioner on May 12, 2010: (1) Request for a Certificate of Appealability, and (2) Request for Reconsideration of Denial. Petitioner is a California state prisoner who filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The matter was transferred to this court on March 2, 2010. Petitioner filed the present motions in response to this court's April 16, 2010 Order denying his February 23, 2009 Motion to Suppress, Protect and Intervene and his January 29, 2010 Motion for Extraordinary Relief. In those motions Petitioner argued that the California District Attorney's Office is plotting to kill his extended family in retaliation for his niece's testimony on his behalf at his criminal trial. He also claimed that agents from the District Attorney's Office kidnapped his wife and step-daughter and "brainwashed" them into acting 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM MOORE, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:07-cv-423 BJR ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF KEN CLARK, APPEALABILITY AND MOTION Respondent. FOR RECONSIDERATION __________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 against Petitioner.1 This court denied the motions because the allegations lacked any factual support and he failed to state a legally cognizable claim.2 In the present motions, Petitioner requests that the court issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) so that he may appeal the April 16th Order, and, simultaneously, requests that the court reconsider its April 16th ruling. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal "the final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court." See Wilson v. Bellequ, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). This court has not issued a final ruling on the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is not warranted and will not be issued. Likewise, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration must be denied. Not only was the motion filed well after the fourteen day time limitation imposed by Local Rule 7(h) expired, but Petitioner failed to show either manifest error or raise new facts or legal authority that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought to the court's attention earlier.3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Request for a Based on these allegations, Petitioner sought the following relief: (1) that the court "discover" the "Plot to Kill"; (2) that he receive a change of venue; (3) that the word "Petitioner" be "expanded and construed too[sic] mean William Moore and Kathryn Moore, and treated jointly as husband and wife"; (4) that Petitioner's criminal case be sealed in order to protect his family; (5) that his request for a writ of habeas be granted; and (6) that he be awarded costs and damages in excess of eight million dollars. 2 3 1 The court also noted that the relief Petitioner sought is beyond the scope of a writ for habeas corpus. Petitioner's reference to a January 24, 2009 newspaper article fails to substantiate his theory the California District Attorney's Office is plotting to kill his niece. No evidence has been presented that the defendant referenced in the article is an agent of the District Attorney's Office, that the 14-year-old victim is Petitioner's niece, or that the article relates to Petitioner's case in any manner whatsoever. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Certificate of Appealability and Motion for Reconsideration of Denial are DENIED. DATED this 4th day of June, 2010. /s/ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 3

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?