IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 14, 2012
ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 16)
On November 13, 2012, the Court adopted a Findings and Recommendation and denied Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as successive because the grounds raised in this petition had been previously raised and rejected in other proceedings. See Doc. Nos. 10, 14.
On November 16, 2012, Petitioner filed a Rule 59(e) motion for relief of judgment. See Doc. No. 16. Petitioner argues that relief is warranted pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) because there was misconduct by the opposing side. See id.
Petitioner's arguments are skeletal, and the record reflects that Copenhaver filed no documents in this Court. Instead, the alleged misconduct that Petitioner is raising appears to be occurring in proceedings in the Southern District of Indiana criminal matter. However, those proceedings are separate from the proceedings in this Court. Petitioner has not shown that dismissal was improper, has not shown misconduct in this case, and has not shown that relief from the judgment in this case is appropriate. See School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cnty., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner's Rule 59 motion will be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Rule 59 motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.