Turpening v. Philson et al

Filing 9

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 7 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider 3 Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 02/01/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

AARON LEE TURPENING,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,

13

2:16-cv-02947-JCM-PAL

Respondents.

14

ORDER

_______________________________/

15
16

This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by Nevada prisoner Aaron Lee

17

Turpening. Turpening initiated the action on December 19, 2016. On January 12, 2017, the court

18

granted Turpening leave to proceed in forma pauperis, screened his petition, ordered four of his six

19

claims -- Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 6 -- dismissed, and ordered respondents to respond; respondents’

20

response is due March 13, 2017 (ECF No. 3).

21

On January 27, 2017, Turpening filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7), seeking

22

reconsideration of the dismissal of Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 6. The court “possesses the inherent

23

procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be

24

sufficient,” so long as the court has jurisdiction. City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica

25

Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis and quotation omitted). Generally,

26

reconsideration of an interlocutory order is appropriate “if (1) the district court is presented with

1

newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision

2

that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” S.E.C. v.

3

Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted); see also

4

Antonetti v. Skolnik, No. 3:10-cv-00158-LRH-WCG, 2013 WL 593407, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 13,

5

2013) (stating that this Court applies the Rule 59(e) standard to motions for reconsideration of

6

interlocutory orders). Turpening does not make any showing that reconsideration is warranted.

7

Grounds 3, 4, 5 and 6 of his petition are patently meritless.

8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 7)
is DENIED.

10
11

February 1, 2017.
Dated this _____ day of ________________________, 2017.

12
13
UN TE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
UNITED
TE
JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2