Perez v. Uttecht

Filing 25

ORDER Denying 19 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers. (MO, Courtroom Deputy)**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Hector Perez, Prisoner ID: 335403)

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

1
2

May 05, 2017

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHIGNTON

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5
6

HECTOR ENRIQUES PEREZ,
No. 1:17-CV-3006-JTR

7

Petitioner,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

JEFFREY A. UTTECHT,

11

Respondent.

12
13
14
15

BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s pleading entitled “In the Matter of
the Denial Motion to Stay and Abey Fed Habeas Proceedings.” ECF No. 19.
On March 13, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner’s request to stay and abey

16

his federal habeas action while he attempted to pursue an amended personal

17

restraint petition in state court. ECF No. 16. In the instant pleading, Petitioner

18

requests the Court rule in his favor on his previous request to stay his federal

19

habeas matter. ECF No. 19 at 8. The Court thus construes the instant pleading,

20

ECF No. 19, as a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 13, 2017 Order

21

Denying Motion to Stay and Abey Federal Habeas Proceedings.

22

It is a basic principle of federal practice that “courts generally . . . refuse to

23

reopen what has been decided.” Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912);

24

Magnesystems, Inc. v. Nikken, Inc., 933 F.Supp. 944, 948 (C.D. Cal. 1996).

25

However, reconsideration is appropriate if the court: (1) is presented with newly

26

discovered evidence; (2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was

27

manifestly unjust; or (3) is presented with an intervening change in controlling law.

28

School District 1J, Multnomah County v. A C and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
ORDER. . . - 1

1

Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994); see also Alliance

2

for Cannabis Therapeutics v. D.E.A., 15 F.3d 1131, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1994). There

3

may also be other highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration.

4

School District 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),

5

reconsideration is available upon a showing of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

6

or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation

7

or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or

8

discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

60(b).

10

Here, Petitioner has demonstrated no new or different facts or

11

circumstances; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or party

12

misconduct; or mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect to warrant

13

reconsideration. Nor has Petitioner alleged that relief is appropriate under Rule

14

60(b)(4)-(6). Petitioner therefore fails to provide a proper basis for this Court to

15

reconsider its prior ruling on this matter under Rule 60(b).

16
17
18
19
20

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 19, is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
Order and forward a copy to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.
DATED May 5, 2017.

21
_____________________________________
JOHN T. RODGERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER. . . - 2