IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 28, 2012
EARNEST S. HARRIS, PETITIONER,
BILL LOCKYER, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner currently proceeding pro se, sought habeas corpus relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2254. Final judgment was entered in respondent's favor and this case closed on September 24, 2007. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his unsuccessful appeal, on April 19, 2012, petitioner filed a motion in this court entitled "motion to amend." On August 15, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations construing the motion as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and recommending that the motion be denied.
A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Id. at 1263.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. Upon review, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations at Docket 65, are adopted in full; and
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend at Docket 64 is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.