Turner v. Duffy

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 7/17/18 ORDERING that Petitioner's Motion for Reinstatement of this habeas action 32 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT C. TURNER,

12

No. 2:15-cv-2356 WBS CKD P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

BRIAN DUFFY,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se. On June 7, 2018, the court denied

18

his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has filed a motion asking that this habeas action

19

be reinstated.

20

A district court can reconsider the entry of judgment pursuant to either Federal Rule of

21

Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,

22

5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Generally speaking, “Reconsideration is appropriate if the

23

district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

24

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

25

Id. at 1263.

26

Petitioner’s request that this action be reinstated appears to be based upon the ground that

27

he “affirmatively denies having ever ‘filed objections to the findings and recommendations’” of

28

the magistrate judge. He did on April 5, 2018, and his objections are in the file as Docket. No.
1

1

23. Accordingly, because petitioner’s motion appears to be based upon a false premise, and

2

because he has failed to demonstrate that the denial of his petition was manifestly unjust,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reinstatement of this habeas

4

action (ECF No. 32) is denied.

5

Dated: July 17, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11

turn2356.mfr

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

2