IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 1, 2012
VASILIY POPOV, PETITIONER,
M. MARTEL, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner has filed a motion asking this court to vacate its July 26, 2010 order dismissing his habeas corpus petition as untimely. Both parties have consented to jurisdiction by United States Magistrate Judge.
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.
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not have been dismissed as untimely. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the July 26, 2010 order dismissing the case is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's September 10, 2012 motion to vacate the judgment is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.