Hooper v. McDaniel et al
Filing
96
ORDER DENYING 89 Motion to reconsider. FURTHER ORD DENYING 90 Motion for property restoration. FURTHER ORD GRANTING 95 Motion for leave to file. Clerk SHALL DETACH and FILE petitioner's reply (# 95 -1). Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/20/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
DAVID OWENS HOOPER,
10
11
Petitioner,
vs.
12
E.K. MCDANIEL, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/
3:11-cv-00221-LRH-VPC
ORDER
15
On September 14, 2012, the court granted in part respondents’ motion to dismiss many claims
16
in this petition as untimely, procedurally barred or for failure to state a claim for which habeas relief may
17
be granted (ECF #87). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for district judge to reconsider the order
18
granting the motion to dismiss (ECF #89).
19
Where a ruling has resulted in final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration may be
20
construed either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
21
59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J
22
Multnomah County v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1236 (1994).
23
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the
24
25
26
27
28
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed
1
2
or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should
have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief
from the operation of the judgment.
3
Motions to reconsider are generally left to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin
4
Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In order to succeed on a motion to reconsider, a party
5
must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
6
decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986),
7
aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 59(e) of the Federal
8
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any “motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later
9
than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Furthermore, a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “should
10
not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly
11
discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
12
Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001), quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,
13
1255 (9th Cir. 1999).
14
In the order of September 14, 2012, the court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition
15
in part because many of the claims were procedurally barred or failed to state claims cognizable in a
16
habeas corpus action (ECF #87). Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing under either Rule
17
60(b) or 59(e) that this court’s order granting the motion to dismiss his petition should be reversed.
18
Next, petitioner has filed a motion for property restoration/non liabilities exemption (ECF #90).
19
Petitioner appears to argue that prison personnel have confiscated some of his property, including certain
20
documents that he would file in this matter as exhibits. The court has briefly reviewed respondents’
21
answer to the petition (ECF #91), petitioner’s reply (ECF #95-1), and the many exhibits on file (see, e.g.,
22
ECF #s 59, 61-63). It appears to the court at this time that the parties have provided the documents
23
necessary for a determination of the petition’s merits. Of course, the court can direct respondents or both
24
parties to supplement the record at a later date, as warranted.
25
26
27
28
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for district judge to reconsider order
(ECF #89) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for property restoration
order/nonliabilities exemption (ECF #90) is DENIED.
2
1
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file belated reply (ECF #95)
is GRANTED. The Clerk SHALL DETACH and FILE petitioner’s reply (ECF #95-1).
3
4
DATED this 20th day of February, 2013.
5
6
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
