Alford v. Shasta County Superior Court

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/15/11 ORDERING that petitioner's motion for reconsideration 22 is denied. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS T. ALFORD, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-10-1383 JAM DAD P vs. SHASTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 14 Respondent. 15 ORDER / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 11, 2011, the court dismissed the petition 18 without prejudice to its refiling with a copy of an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 19 authorizing petitioner to file a second or successive petition. On the same day, the court entered 20 judgment and closed the case. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration in light of the 21 United States Supreme Court recent decision in Skinner v. Switzer, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1289 22 (2011). 23 As an initial matter the court notes that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is 24 untimely. Under Rule 59(e), a party must file a motion to alter or amend a judgment “no later 25 than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See also Rule 12, Rules 26 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Here, the court entered judgment on February 11, 2011. Even 1 1 applying the mailbox rule, petitioner did not file his motion until March 30, 2011, well after the 2 28-day deadline to file such a motion had expired. 3 Moreover, even if petitioner had timely filed his motion, he is not entitled to 4 relief. The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) ‘should 5 not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 6 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in 7 controlling law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) 8 (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). 9 Here, petitioner argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Skinner is a 10 change in controlling law. To the extent that petitioner believes Skinner effected the outcome of 11 the instant case, he is in error. In Skinner, the Supreme Court merely held that a convicted state 12 prisoner may seek DNA testing of crime scene-evidence by way of a civil rights action brought 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that success in such an action did not necessarily imply the 14 invalidity of the prisoner’s conviction and was therefore not Heck-barred. 131 S. Ct. at 1298-99. 15 The Supreme Court’s decision in Skinner has no effect on petitioner’s ability to bring a second or 16 successive petition in the district court. Under controlling law, before petitioner may file a 17 second or successive petition in the district court, “the applicant shall move in the appropriate 18 court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2244(b)(3)(A). 20 To the extent petitioner argues that this court should re-open this case and allow 21 him to proceed with his claim seeking DNA testing as if this action were a civil rights case, he is 22 again in error. Petitioner is advised that this habeas corpus action is now closed. If petitioner 23 wishes to proceed with his claim for DNA testing in a civil rights action, he will need to file a 24 civil rights complaint as required by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He will also 25 be required to either pay the required filing fee ($350.00) or file an application requesting leave 26 to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for 2 reconsideration is denied. 3 DATED: August 15, 2011 4 5 /s/ John A. Mendez 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?