Singleton v. State of Washington

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, denying 24 Motion for Reconsideration re 19 Order Dismissing Case, filed by Joseph Earl Singleton. The Court further certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (LR, Case Administrator)

1

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

2

Jan 08, 2018
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8
9

JOSEPH EARL SINGLETON,
NO: 2:17-cv-00069-LRS
Petitioner,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

10

Respondent.

11
12

BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s document which was liberally construed

13

as a Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 24. By Order filed October 24, 2017, after

14

having granted Petitioner an extensive opportunity to amend, the Court dismissed this

15

action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Respondent and judgment was entered.

16

ECF Nos. 19 and 20. Petitioner, a prisoner at the Spokane County Jail, is proceeding

17

pro se and in forma pauperis. The Motion was considered without oral argument on

18

the date signed below.

19

A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from
judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 1

1

district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly

2

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

3

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty.

4

Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at

5

1263). These standards apply in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to

6

the extent they are not inconsistent with applicable federal statutory provisions and

7

rules. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005).

8

Here, Petitioner has not alleged that there has been an intervening change of

9

controlling law. Likewise, he has not offered newly discovered evidence that would

10

justify this court re-examining the issue of his failure to amend his petition.

11

The only remaining question is whether the Court should alter its prior ruling in

12

order to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Smith, 727 F.3d at 955. The

13

dismissal of the petition was without prejudice. There is no clear error or manifest

14

injustice. The Court finds no basis to reconsider the Order dismissing this action.

15

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No.

16

24 is DENIED. If Petitioner wishes to file a new and separate habeas action, he is free

17

to do so.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order and provide a

19

copy to Petitioner. The file shall remain closed. The Court further certifies that pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 2

1

and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §

2

2253(c); Fed. R.App. P. 22(b).

3

DATED this 8th day of January, 2018.

4
5
6

s/Lonny R. Suko
_______________________
LONNY R. SUKO
SR. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- 3