Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01784/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01784-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC DWIGHT RICE,

Petitioner,

v.

BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:14-cv-1784 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this habeas proceeding filed 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On August 13, 2014, this action was dismissed without prejudice 

because the petition did not challenge the fact or duration of petitioner’s confinement. (ECF No. 

5.) On August 28, 2014, petitioner filed a motion to reopen the instant action. In his motion, 

petitioner argues that the words “black” and “ghetto” are discriminatory, and he seeks to change 

the title “Black History Month” to “African History Month.” (ECF No. 9 at 1.) 

Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different 

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 

not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)(4). 

////

Case 2:14-cv-01784-KJN Document 10 Filed 09/10/14 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

2

The allegations contained in plaintiff’s request for reconsideration also do not challenge 

the fact or duration of his confinement. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration fails to make the

showing required under Local Rule 230(j), and plaintiff fails to otherwise demonstrate that the 

court’s June 18, 2013 order ought to be reconsidered. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 9) is denied.

Dated: September 10, 2014

/rice1784.rec

Case 2:14-cv-01784-KJN Document 10 Filed 09/10/14 Page 2 of 2