(HC) Harris v. Lockyer, No. 2:2004cv01906 - Document 69 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/28/2012 ORDERING that the 65 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's 64 Motion to Amend is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Harris v. Lockyer Doc. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EARNEST S. HARRIS, 11 Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-04-1906 GEB CKD P BILL LOCKYER, 14 Respondent. 15 ORDER / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently proceeding pro se, sought habeas corpus relief 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2254. Final judgment was entered in respondent’s favor and this case 18 closed on September 24, 2007. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the United States Court of 19 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following his unsuccessful appeal, on April 19, 2012, petitioner 20 filed a motion in this court entitled “motion to amend.” On August 15, 2012, the magistrate 21 judge filed findings and recommendations construing the motion as a motion for relief from 22 judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and recommending that the motion be 23 denied. 24 A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 26 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is Dockets.Justia.com 1 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 2 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 4 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. Upon review, the court finds the 5 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations at Docket 65, are adopted in full; and 8 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend at Docket 64 is DENIED. 9 Dated: September 28, 2012 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
