(HC) Jackson v. Martinez ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YONNIE JACKSON, No. 2:17-cv-01311-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSE MARTINEZ, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking the Court to 18 reconsider its October 13, 2021 order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A district 19 court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See 20 Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 21 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 22 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 23 an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. 24 Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence and there has not been a change in 25 the law. Furthermore, the Court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the decision to 26 deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 2 | (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. 3 | DATED: January 28, 2022 6 Troy L. Nuhlep ] 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >