Jackson v. Martinez

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/28/2022 DENYING 40 Motion for reconsideration. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YONNIE JACKSON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-01311-TLN-CKD

v.

ORDER

JOSE MARTINEZ,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking the Court to

18

reconsider its October 13, 2021 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A district

19

court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See

20

Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

21

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

22

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

23

an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.
Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence and there has not been a change in

24
25

the law. Furthermore, the Court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the decision to

26

deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust.

27

///

28

///

1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

2

(ECF No. 40) is DENIED.

3

DATED: January 28, 2022

4
5
6
7

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

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

2