Marsala v. Lackner

Filing 66

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/27/16 DENYING 65 Motion for Reconsideration. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH AUGUST MARSALA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1614 CKD P

v.

ORDER

HEIDI LACKNER,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document the court

17
18

construes as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a writ

19

of habeas corpus. A court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

21

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

22

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

23

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.
Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence and there has been no change in the

24
25

law. Furthermore, the court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

26

neither clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust.

27

/////

28

/////

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

2

(ECF No. 65) is denied.

3

Dated: September 27, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8

1
mars1614.mfr

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

2