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)

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