UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 14, 2011
SHAWN WALKER, PETITIONER,
C.M. HARRISON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. 35]
On October 12, 2006, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed with prejudice as untimely and judgment was entered this same date. On October 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 20, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability.
Over three years later, on July 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to remedy "extrinsic fraud practiced upon the court."
On July 14, 2010, the undersigned denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
On September 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On October 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request for a certificate of appealability for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.
Now pending before the Court is Petitioner's second motion for reconsideration filed on February 17, 2011. Petitioner is advised that his arguments were considered in the Court's ruling on the previous motion for relief, which motion was denied. Petitioner has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma Gmbh & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner's disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). For the same reasons previously stated, the instant motion is denied. Petitioner is further advised that this case is terminated. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the motion for relief from judgment in this Court have all been denied. Petitioner is informed that additional filings in this case will be STRICKEN without any consideration by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.