Aristakesian v. Holland et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/18/18 denying 31 Motion for reconsideration. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ARTOUR ARISTAKESIAN,

9

Petitioner,

10
11
12

v.

No. 2:16-cv-0786 JAM AC P

ORDER

K. HOLLAND, WARDEN,
Respondent.

13
14

Petitioner has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 31. Because the

15

court’s October 12, 2017 order previously declined to issue a certificate of appealability (see ECF

16

No. 29), the court construes petitioner’s pleading as a motion for reconsideration.

17

A review of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s October 2017 order

18

which affirmed the magistrate judge’s July 12, 2017 order (see ECF No. 25) reveals that

19

petitioner has failed to demonstrate any new or different facts or circumstances which did not

20

exist or were not shown upon the prior motion. See E.D. Local Rule 230(j). Accordingly, the

21

motion for reconsideration is denied.

22
23
24
25

DATED: July 18, 2018
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

26
27
28
1