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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?