Garrett v. Runnels

Filing 74

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG DENIED as moot 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File; DENIED as moot 63 Motion ; DENIED as moot 64 Motion ; DENIED as moot 66 Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 68 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 68 Motion to Reopen Case (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 ) ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) D.L. RUNNELS, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________________ ) WILLIAM RUSSELL GARRETT, No. C 06-5182 SBA (pr) ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS Docket Nos. 61, 63, 64, 66, and 68 14 15 On May 21, 2009, the Court denied the habeas petition in the above-titled matter, and 16 entered judgment in favor of Respondent. (Docket Nos. 42 & 43.) On August 27, 2009, the 17 Court denied Petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 48). 18 Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which, on June 16, 2011, denied 19 his request for a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 51). On June 5, 2012, the United 20 States Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari. (Docket no. 70). 21 22 23 24 After the Ninth Circuit rejected Petitioner's appeal, he filed additional motions in this Court. On November 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 21, 2009 Order and Judgment and, on February 24, 2012, he filed a motion for reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities 25 26 27 28 Act (ADA). (Docket Nos. 53, 57). On March 13, 2012, the Court denied both of these motions. (Docket no. 60). Petitioner now has filed the following: (1) motion for extension of time to file 1 rehearing and appeals motions (Docket no. 61); (2) motion for reasonable accommodations 2 (Docket no. 63); (3) second motion for reasonable accommodations (Docket no. 64); 3 (4) motion to set aside the judgment (Docket no. 66); (5) second motion for reconsideration 4 of the Court's May 21, 2009 Order; (Docket no. 68); and (6) supplement to motion for 5 reconsideration (Docket no. 71). The Court addresses Petitioner's motion for reconsideration 6 and, for the reasons discussed below, denies it. The Court's denial of said motion renders all 7 remaining motions moot. A district court has the discretion to reconsider a prior order. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 9 ACandS, Inc., Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "A motion for 10 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 8 12 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 13 14 15 16 17 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's denial of his claim that the state trial 18 court denied him reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities 19 Act (ADA) based on recently promulgated California regulations applying the ADA to 20 superior courts. Although one of the grounds for reconsideration is an intervening change of 21 controlling law, the new state regulations do not provide grounds for reconsideration 22 because habeas proceedings must be predicated upon violations of the federal Constitution 23 and laws of the United States. See Rhoades v. Henry, 611 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) 24 ("In short, violations of state law are not cognizable on federal habeas review." ). Thus, even 25 if the superior court violated a state regulation, such a violation would not be cognizable in a 26 federal habeas corpus proceeding. 27 Petitioner also seeks reconsideration of several claims on the ground that the 28 2 1 2 California Supreme Court did not have the full record of his criminal case when it made its ruling. This is insufficient grounds for reconsideration of his habeas claims. The issue of 3 4 5 6 whether the California Supreme had a complete record is an issue for that particular court to consider. Petitioner also claims that the state court record in this Court regarding several of his habeas claims was incomplete. The Court addressed this claim in its May 21, 2009 7 Order. See May 21, 2009 Order at 10. Petitioner has not presented any arguments relating 8 that claim that warrant reconsideration. reconsideration, docket no. 72, in which he submits a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Miles v. 11 For the Northern District of California Finally, the Court notes that Petititioner recently filed a supplement to his motion for 10 United States District Court 9 Martel, 696 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the Ninth Circuit has since withdrawn that 12 decision. Miles v. Martel, -- F.3d --, 2012 WL 5896794 *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2012). 13 14 15 16 17 18 In sum, because Petitioner presents no cogent arguments for granting reconsideration, the motion is denied. Petitioner's other motions are denied as moot.1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Docket no. 68) and supplemental motion (Docket no. 71) are DENIED. All other motions are denied as moot. This order terminates Docket Nos. 61, 63, 64, 66, and 68. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED: 11-30-12 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 20 21 22 L:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.06\Garrett182RH2ndReconShortREVISED.frm 23 24 1 25 26 27 Furthermore, Petitioner may not continue his attempts to relitigate issues that have already been adjudicated. Petitioner is not to file further motions in this case, which has been closed since 2009. The Clerk is ordered to return to Petitioner any further documents he files in this case. 28 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 WILLIAM RUSSELL GARRETT, Case Number: CV06-05182 SBA 8 Plaintiff, 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 v. 12 13 D.L. RUNNELS et al, 14 15 Defendant. 16 / 17 18 19 20 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 21 22 That on December 3, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 23 24 25 26 copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 27 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 William R. Garrett V-30110 California Men's Colony 7 P.O. Box 8101 8 San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101 9 Dated: December 3, 2012 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 12 By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?