Campodonica v. Cate

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 21 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DAREN DEWANE CAMPODONICA,

9

Petitioner,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

12

No. C-10-0297 EMC

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 21)
13
14
15

This closed federal habeas action is currently on appeal. Petitioner has filed a motion to alter

16

or amend the judgment, which the Court construes as containing a motion for reconsideration

17

(Docket No. 21).

18

The motion is denied. Petitioner’s motion contains no showing of newly- discovered

19

evidence, or that the Court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly

20

unjust, or that there was an intervening change in controlling law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); United

21

Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v.

22

City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)). Nor does the motion contain a showing of

23

newly-discovered evidence, nor does it set forth any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable

24

neglect, fraud by the adverse party, or voiding of the judgment; Petitioner offers no other reason

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

2

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

3

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 21.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 29, 2013

8
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2