Prum v. Macomber

Filing 30

ORDER denying petitioner's 24 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/4/17. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHANREASMEY PRUM,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0905 TLN CKD P

v.

ORDER

JEFF MACOMBER,

15

Respondent.

16
On August 18, 2016, petitioner filed a request for reconsideration of the August 9, 2016

17
18

judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and declining to order a certificate of

19

appealability.
A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

20
21

or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

22

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

23

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)

24

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the Court’s decision was

25

not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the other factors apply.

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 24) is denied.

3
4

Dated: January 4, 2017

5
6
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2