Ellis v. Little

Filing 72

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Respondents Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 55 ) is GRANTED. 2. Petitioners Motion in Objection to Memorandum Decision and Order, Motion for Relief and to Vacate a Judgment or Order, Motion forReconsideration of an Inter locutory Order, and Supplemental Motion forReconsideration of an Interlocutory Order (Dkts. 56 , 57 , 65 & 67 ) are DENIED. 3. Petitioners Motion for Correction to his reply in support of the remaining claims in the Petition (Dkt. 66 ) is GRANT ED. 4. Petitioners Motion to Enter Judgment (Dkt. 70 ) is DENIED as premature to the extent that it requests that the Court grant the Petition, and DENIED as moot to the extent Petitioner seeks a ruling on his pending motions. 5. The Court will issue a merits decision on Petitioners remaining claims at alater date. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JERRY LEONARD ELLIS,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00515-BLW
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
STEVEN LITTLE, Warden, Southern
Idaho Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
Pending before the Court in this habeas corpus matter are Petitioner’s requests that
the Court reconsider its January 27, 2017 Order granting Respondent’s motion for partial
summary dismissal and dismissing Claims 1, 2, and 6 through 22 as procedurally
defaulted. Also pending are several other motions filed by the parties.
Petitioner has filed the following requests for reconsideration: (1) a Motion in
Objection to Memorandum Decision and Order; (2) a Motion for Relief and to Vacate a
Judgment or Order; (3) a Motion for Reconsideration of an Interlocutory Order; and (4) a
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of an Interlocutory Order. (Dkts. 56, 57, 65,
67.) Petitioner cites various rules in his Motions, including Rule 60(b), which applies
only to final orders. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“Rule 60(b), like Rule 59(e), applies only to motions attacking final, appealable
orders . . . .”).

ORDER - 1

Because the Court’s January 27, 2017 Memorandum Decision and Order was not a
final order, the Court construes all of Petitioner’s requests for reconsideration as seeking
to invoke the Court’s “inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an
interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles v. Santa
Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and
emphasis omitted). Although courts have authority to reconsider prior orders, they
“should be loath to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the
initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’”
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (quoting Arizona
v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n. 8 (1983)).
The Court does not find sufficient cause to reconsider its January 27, 2017
Memorandum Decision and Order. Other than Petitioner’s arguments regarding
timeliness and cognizability, which are moot because the Court did not base its decision
on those grounds, Petitioner’s Motions present little more than a disagreement with the
Court’s legal analysis—a matter for appeal, not reconsideration. Petitioner has not shown
that the Court’s decision to grant Respondent’s motion for partial summary dismissal was
clearly erroneous or that it will work a manifest injustice. Thus, Petitioner’s requests for
reconsideration will be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

ORDER - 2

Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 55) is GRANTED.

2.

Petitioner’s Motion in Objection to Memorandum Decision and Order,
Motion for Relief and to Vacate a Judgment or Order, Motion for
Reconsideration of an Interlocutory Order, and Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration of an Interlocutory Order (Dkts. 56, 57, 65, & 67) are
DENIED.

3.

Petitioner’s Motion for Correction to his reply in support of the remaining
claims in the Petition (Dkt. 66) is GRANTED.

4.

Petitioner’s Motion to Enter Judgment (Dkt. 70) is DENIED as premature
to the extent that it requests that the Court grant the Petition, and DENIED
as moot to the extent Petitioner seeks a ruling on his pending motions.

5.

The Court will issue a merits decision on Petitioner’s remaining claims at a
later date.

DATED: February 21, 2018

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER - 3