Rice v. Obama et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/24/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's 11 motion is DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC DWIGHT RICE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1784 KJN P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, previously filed a petition for a writ of

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner consented to proceed before the

19

undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

20

In his petition, petitioner set forth the following grounds for habeas relief: (1) America

21

has committed a crime against humanity by allowing him and other African Americans to be

22

called “Black”; (2) America is guilty of social and economic discrimination against minorities

23

and African Americans; and (3) Black History month is offensive, degrading, and a dishonor to

24

all African Americans, past and present. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5.) Petitioner conceded that he did not

25

exhaust his state court remedies in connection with these claims, and explained that he failed to

26

do so because the state court lacked jurisdiction over them. (Id. at 5.)

27
28

On August 13, 2014, the court filed an order dismissing the petition without prejudice.
(ECF No. 5.) The basis for the dismissal was the court’s determination that, because petitioner
1

1

had not challenged the fact or duration of his confinement in his petition, his claims were not

2

appropriate for a § 2254 action. The court therein also declined to construe petitioner’s filing as a

3

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.)

4

On August 28, 2014, petitioner filed a motion to reopen the case. (ECF No. 9.) On

5

September 10, 2014, the court denied this motion, finding that petitioner had again failed to set

6

forth any allegations challenging the fact or duration of his confinement, and further, that he had

7

failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration set forth in Local Rule 230. (ECF No. 10.)

8

On December 29, 2014, petitioner filed a letter requesting to refile his case with the

9

undersigned. (ECF No. 11.) The court will construe this letter as a renewed motion for

10

reconsideration, and will deny the motion. Petitioner has yet again failed to set forth any

11

allegations that challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, as required under 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 2254. Petitioner has also failed to make the showing required by Local Rule 230(j), which calls

13

upon a party seeking reconsideration to state “what new or different facts or circumstances are

14

claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other

15

grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of

16

the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(j)(3), (4).

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 11) is denied.
Dated: February 24, 2015

19
20
21

/ rice1784.dsm.2nd

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2