Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06338/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06338-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE SIMMONS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

MIKE KNOWLES, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

CV F 99 6338 OWW SMS HC

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT FOR

CLERICAL MISTAKE

[Doc. #102]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be denied. On April 11, 2005, Petitioner filed objections.

On May 5, 2005, this Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full and denied the

petition with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment thereon. 

On May 16, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend the judgment for clerical

mistake pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e)

provides:

Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall 

be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.

Case 1:99-cv-06338-OWW -SMS Document 106 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

Rule 60(a) provides:

Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and

errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of

its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court

orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the

appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so

corrected with leave of the appellate court.

Petitioner claims this Court stated it was adopting the Findings and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge in full, yet the final order did not match the Findings and Recommendation. In

particular, Petitioner states this Court dismissed the petition with prejudice, but the Magistrate Judge

had recommended the petition be denied. The Court has reviewed the docket and finds Petitioner’s

contention to be without merit. The Magistrate Judge recommended the petition be “denied,” and

this Court ordered the petition “denied with prejudice.” To the extent that Petitioner takes issue with

the additional words “with prejudice,” the argument is groundless. When a petition is denied on the

merits, it is for all purposes a denial “with prejudice.” This Court’s order merely clarified that fact. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to amend the judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06338-OWW -SMS Document 106 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 2