Ranteesi v. Grounds

Filing 110

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/31/12 ORDERING that Petitioner's MOTION for Reconsideration 103 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SIMON F. RANTEESI,

11
12
13

Petitioner,

No. 2: 10-cv-0439 GEB TJB P

vs.
RANDY GROUNDS,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER
/

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

16
17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for

18

reconsideration of the court’s July 16, 2012 order and judgment which denied the habeas

19

petition.

20

The court may grant reconsideration from final judgment under Federal Rules of

21

Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60. Generally, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is

22

appropriately brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Backlund v. Barnhart,

23

778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th

24

Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of

25

judgment. See FED . R. CIV . P. 59(e). In this case, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was

26

timely as it was filed one week after judgment was issued. Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may
1

1

justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new

2

evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See 389 Orange

3

Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Local Rule 230(j) requires that a

4

party seeking reconsideration of a district court’s order must brief the new or different facts or

5

circumstances which were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the

6

motion.

7

Petitioner asserts in his motion that he was wrongly convicted for his crimes due

8

to his Paxil medication which caused him to be involuntarily intoxicated when he committed his

9

crimes. Petitioner’s arguments which respect to his Paxil medication do not justify reconsidering

10

the order and judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for

11

reconsideration (Dkt. No. 103.) is DENIED.

12

Dated: October 31, 2012

13
14
15

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2