Torres v. Hatton

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONS; GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File; granting 54 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Certificate of Service Attached). (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2019)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MARIO TORRES,
Petitioner,

5
6
7
8

v.
SHAWN HATTON,
Respondent.

9

Case No. 17-cv-04332-PJH
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
APPEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 54

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

This is a pro se prisoner habeas case. On March 8, 2019, after the parties fully
briefed the claims in the petition, the Court issued an Order Denying the Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability. On the same day, the
Court entered judgment in favor of the respondent. On March 25, 2019, petitioner filed a
motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, on April 5, 2019, he
filed a notice of appeal and, on April 18, 2019, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal.
In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner states he is in county jail on another
matter and, in addition to an order for an extension of time, he requests the Court issue
orders to the state court about his in forma pauperis status and his need for appointment
of counsel. This Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s new state case; therefore, it
cannot issue orders to the state court regarding that case.
Where the court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment, a motion for
reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment)
or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001).

1

The denial of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of

2

relief under Rule 60(b). McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999)

3

(en banc).

4

Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they

5

are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court.

6

Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

7

"'[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of

8

controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or

9

prevent manifest injustice.'" Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d
364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)).

12

In his motion for an extension of time, petitioner does not argue there has been an

13

intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence or the need to

14

correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. His motion indicates he seeks to

15

relitigate the claims in his petition. However, a motion for reconsideration is not a

16

substitute for an appeal or a forum for re-litigating claims. Therefore, the motion for an

17

extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is denied because petitioner has not

18

indicated he has grounds for reconsideration.

19

Although petitioner has not filed his trust account statement with his motion to

20

proceed IFP, the Court credits his statements in his application that he is indigent and

21

has only $.13 in his trust account. Therefore, petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP on

22

appeal is granted.

23

This Order terminates docket numbers 50 and 54.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: April 24, 2019

26
27

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MARIO TORRES,

Case No. 17-cv-04332-PJH

Plaintiff,
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SHAWN HATTON,
Defendant.

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on April 24, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said 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.

16
17
18

Mario Torres ID: CC19KW389
4058 Treat Blvd.
Concord, CA 94518

19
20

Dated: April 24, 2019

21
22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Kelly Collins, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

27
28
3