Denny v. Gipson

Filing 27

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/4/2014 ORDERING 26 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEROME JACKSON DENNY, JR.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0489 TLN AC P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

RALPH M. DIAZ,
Respondent.

16
17

On March 7, 2014, this Court adopted the Findings and Recommendations of Magistrate

18

Judge Allison Claire (See ECF No. 22), determining that Jerome Jackson Denny, Jr.’s

19

(“Petitioner”) petition for habeas corpus relief was barred pursuant to the Antiterrorism and

20

Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) one-year statute of limitations for habeas relief. (See

21

Order, ECF No. 24.) Consequently, this case was closed. (See Judgment, ECF No. 25.)

22

On March 25, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (See Mot. Recon, ECF

23

No. 26.) In Petitioner’s motion, he alleges that he is innocent and thus his petition is not time

24

barred. However, for Petitioner to succeed in tolling AEDPA’s statute of limitations, he must

25

“show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of

26

the new evidence....” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). Schlup additionally requires a

27

petitioner “to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence—whether

28

it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical
1

1

evidence—that was not presented at trial.” Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2011)

2

(quoting Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324). Petitioner has failed to do so and thus his Petition is time

3

barred. As such, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: April 4, 2014

7
8
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2