Lynn v. Sacramento Superior Court

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/23/16 ORDERING that petitioner's request for de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's 12 findings and recommendations, construed as a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CALVIN S. LYNN,

12
13
14
15

Civ. No. 2:14-2601 WBS KJN

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT,
Respondents.

16

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.

17

On

18

November 6, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for writ of error

19

coram vobis challenging his 2010 conviction in the Sacramento

20

County Superior Court.1

21

this action was dismissed without prejudice and judgment was

22

entered.

On February 3, 2015,

(Docket Nos. 6-7.)
On June 12, 2015, petitioner filed a motion to reopen

23
24

(Docket No. 1.)

this case, and the matter was referred to a United States

25
26
27
28

1

A writ of error coram vobis is a “writ of error sent by
an appellate court to a trial court to review the trial court’s
judgment based on an error of fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary
(10th ed. 2014). The writ of error coram vobis has been
abolished in federal civil practice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(e).
1

1

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

2

Rule 302.

3

petitioner’s motion as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant

4

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

5

Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations denying

6

petitioner’s motion.

7

(Docket No. 8.)

The Magistrate Judge construed

On July 22, 2015, the

(Docket No. 9.)

Petitioner filed objections to the findings and

8

recommendations.

(Docket No. 10.)

In accordance with the

9

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

10

court conducted a de novo review of the entire file.

11

written Order dated August 25, 2015, the court found the findings

12

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

13

analysis.

14

In a

(Docket No. 11.)
On February 17, 2016, petitioner again filed objections

15

to the Magistrate Judge’s July 22 findings and recommendations

16

and requested the court to “review and decide this case de novo,

17

and reject, or modify the Magistrate’s findings and

18

recommendations.”

19

plaintiff’s request as a request for reconsideration.

20

(Docket No. 12.)

The court construes

Three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an

21

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of

22

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

23

manifest injustice.

24

1388, 1393 (9th Cir. 1995).

25

objections that he raised previously.

26

with Docket No. 11.)

27

any intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or

28

grounds demonstrating the need to correct clear error or prevent

Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d
Petitioner here raises the same
(Compare Docket No. 12,

In his objections, petitioner does not cite

2

1

manifest injustice.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s

3

request for de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s July 22

4

findings and recommendations (Docket No. 12), construed as a

5

motion for reconsideration, be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

6

Dated:

February 23, 2016

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