(HC) Sengchareun v. Thompson ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Boaphan Sengchareun, No. 2:21-cv-00783-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Paul Thompson, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The previously assigned district judge held that this matter was not ripe for review. Prev. 18 | Opinion at 3, ECF No. 13. Specifically, he found “[a]lthough Sengchareun avers that he has 19 | obtained earned time credits since he entered custody in 2013, a review of the legislation shows 20 | that earned time credits have not yet been established.” /d. at 4 (citing 19 U.S.C. 21 | § 3621(h)(2)(A)-(B). He also found “[t]he overwhelming majority of courts to have considered 22 | similar inmate challenges have come to the conclusion that BOP 1s not yet required to award 23 | earned time credits, and thus § 2241 petitions seeking the award of such credits are premature and 24 | unripe at this time.” /d. (collecting cases). Sengchareun now moves for reconsideration and 25 | consolidation of cases, ECF No. 13. 26 A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under 27 | either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) 28 | (citation omitted). The court considers the filing under Rule 59(e). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (setting 1 | a28-day window to file the motion). Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify 2 | reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; 3 | or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. 4 | City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev ’d in part on other grounds, 5 | 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Similarly, Local Rule 230G)(3)-(4) requires that a movant seeking 6 | reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or any other 7 | grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court's prior order. E.D. Cal. R. 230(G)(3)H{4). 8 Sengchareun’s filing does not provide any justification for the court to reconsider the prior 9 | ruling. Accordingly, the court denies the motion. 10 This order resolves ECF No. 13. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: October 21, 2021. 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45