Moore v. Feather

Filing 16

ORDER: Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 14 and Motion for Summary Judgment 15 are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/25/2013 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
WILLIAM G. MOORE,
Petitioner,

3:

12-CV-01899-JO

v.
MARION FEATHER, Warden,

ORDER

Respondent.
JONES, District Judge.
Petitioner in this

§

2241 habeas action has filed what the

Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration (titled "motion for
new trial")

of the Court's December 13,

2012 Order and Judgment

dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction.
"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error
or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)
an intervening change in controlling law."
1 - ORDER

if there is

School Dist. No. 1 J.

1

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) .
In his motion for reconsideration,
Court

dismissed

his

petition

by

petitioner insists the

improperly

excluding

"newly

discovered" irrefutable extra-record evidence that the government
withheld materially exculpatory evidence at his 1996 trial.
arguments notwithstanding,
that

the

Court's

Order

These

petitioner has failed to demonstrate
dismissing

jurisdiction based on petitioner's

his

action

failure

to

for

lack

of

satisfy Section

2255's savings clause requirements was inappropriately entered.
Accordingly, his Motion for Reconsideration [14] is DENIED.
CONCLUSION

Based

on

Reconsideration

the
[14]

foregoing,
and Motion for

petitioner's

Motion

Summary Judgment

[15]

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

J-~ day

of February, 2013.

~·

2 - ORDER

Judge

for
are