Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00341/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00341-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD POTTS,

Petitioner,

v.

A. MATEVOUSIAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00341-AWI-BAM HC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ALTER 

OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(Docs. 20 and 22)

On January 20, 2015, Petitioner moved to alter or amend the Court’s order adopting 

findings and recommendations (Doc. 20) under F.R.Civ.P. 59(e). He contends (1) the Court 

erroneously referred to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as having denied his application to file 

a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 instead of §§ 2244 and 2255, 

and (2) the Court made a clear error of law in refusing to find that he was actually innocent 

pursuant to the holding in Burrage v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 881 (2014). Petitioner is correct 

that the Court’s order contained a typographical error. This order will correct the typographical 

error but the Court declines Petitioner’s request that it find him actually innocent under Burrage.

Reconsideration of a court's order is an "extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly 

in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources." Kona Enterprises, Inc. 

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting 12 James Wm. Moore, Moore's 

Case 1:15-cv-00341-AWI-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000). "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, 

absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Kona 

Enterprises, 229 F.3d at 890, quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th

Cir. 1999). "[A] motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to establish 

any reason justifying relief." Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Using a 

reconsideration motion to reargue the points that the judge rejected in the original order is 

improper. American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. North American Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 

899 (9th Cir. 2001). A party cannot have relief merely because he or she is unhappy with the 

judgment. See, e.g., Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001). 

In this case, Petitioner does no more than repeat his earlier argument, advanced in 

multiple documents filed before this Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, that he is 

actually innocent under the Burrage holding. In the order adopting the findings and 

recommendations, the Court fully articulated its reasons for rejecting this argument.

In any event, the Court adopted the findings and recommendations, which recommended 

that the Court dismiss the petition due to Petitioner’s prior unsuccessful attempt to pursue a 

second or successive motion to bring a § 2255 petition in the Third Circuit and did not address 

Burrage. See Doc. 17. That alternative holding is an additional basis for this Court to deny 

reconsideration. “The grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or 

successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for 

rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). Petitioner may not circumvent 

applicable law by filing a § 2241 petition raising the issue already addressed by the Third Circuit 

in this Court.

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00341-AWI-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Court’s reference to “§ 2241” in Line 25 of the Order Adopting Findings and 

Recommendations dated December 30, 2015, and filed as Document 20 is stricken and 

replaced with “§ 2244”; and

2. In all other regards, Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the Order Adopting Findings 

and Recommendations dated December 30, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00341-AWI-BAM Document 23 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 3