IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
August 23, 2010
PATRICK PAUL PRINCE, PETITIONER,
MICHAEL MARTEL, ACTING WARDEN OF MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
[Doc. No. 52]
Petitioner seeks post-judgment relief from this Court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No 48) and the judgment entered pursuant thereto (Doc. No. 49). He argues that he should be relieved from the judgment because the Court did not specify its standard of review when it found that his due-process rights were not violated in the underlying state-court proceedings. (See Doc. No. 48 at 3.) However, Petitioner's due-process claim lacks merit under any standard of review.
Petitioner further contends that the Court prematurely denied a certificate of appealability by including such denial in its order denying the petition. However, while district courts previously determined whether to grant a certificate of appealability only after judgment had been entered, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts now provides that "The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant"; this is precisely what the Court did.
Petitioner's remaining arguments amount to requests for reconsideration of arguments that previously were considered and rejected. (See id. at 4--5.) Petitioner sets forth no basis to reconsider that which has already been decided.
Accordingly, and good cause appearing therefor, the motion for relief from judgment is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.