Patkins v. Knipp

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/26/2015 DENYING petitioner's 19 Motion for Reconsideration. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID C. PATKINS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-1718-JAM-CMK-P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

W. KNIPP,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

18

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

19

reconsideration (Docs. 19, 21).

20

Petitioner is requesting the court reconsider its final order and judgment granting

21

respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

22

Final judgment was entered on March 17, 2014. Petition signed his motion on April 27, 2014,

23

and the court received and filed it on May 1, 2014.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing reconsideration of summary judgment); see also

28

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1995). The motion must be filed no later
1

1

than twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule

2

59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2)

3

the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest

4

injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.

5

1986), rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015

6

(1988); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999); accord

7

School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

8

Under Rule 60(a), the court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any

9

order based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the court’s own motion

10

and at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and

11

docketed, leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is

12

pending. See id.

13

Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any

14

order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

15

newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered

16

within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an

17

opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a

18

reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged.

19

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

20

Here, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 28-days

21

provided in Rule 59(e). However, petitioner’s motion fails to raise any grounds for this court to

22

reconsider its final determination under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Other than simply

23

disagreeing with the court’s decision, petitioner provides no specific grounds for this court to find

24

there was clear error, new evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, misconduct, or a

25

mistake. Petitioner raises no new grounds in his motion. Rather, he points the court to the

26

objections he filed in response to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. The

27

court previously reviewed his objections, conducted a de novo review of the case, and found the

28

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. His current
2

1
2
3

motion provides no new grounds for the court to reconsider that determination.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration (Docs. 19, 21) is denied.

4
5
6

DATED: February 26, 2015
/s/ John A. Mendez______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3