IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 8, 2010
STEFFON TERRELL SIMMS,
D.K. SISTO, WARDEN
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable N. Randy Smith Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
On January 19, 2010, Petitioner Simms filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's Order dated January 4, 2010. Specifically, Simms moves this Court to reconsider its decision denying habeas relief and denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the reassignment of the judge. For the reasons detailed below, this Court denies Petitioner's motion on both grounds.
I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HABEAS DECISION
In short, Petitioner has offered no new theory, legal authority, or argument as to why habeas relief was improperly denied. At most, it seems Petitioner now argues that the delay in the decision constitutes grounds for habeas relief. However, he offers no authority or coherent argument in support of that claim. See James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.") (citing Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970)).
Moreover, habeas relief was not wholly denied Petitioner in this Court's Amended Order filed on January 8, 2010. The Court restates its order that Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief, not longer than ten pages, within 30 days of the filing of the amended order (January 8, 2010) addressing the impact of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) on Petitioner's Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial claim.
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE
Petitioner now restates his same argument that it was improper for Chief Judge Ishii of the United States District Court for the District of Eastern California to transfer this case from Magistrate Judge Kimberly to Circuit Judge N.R. Smith of the Ninth Circuit. He offers no new legal authority in support of this motion. Again, this Court sees no basis for this argument in either the Local Rules or the Federal Code and accordingly dismisses the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the habeas decision is DENIED;
2. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the reassignment of judge is DENIED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.