Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03892/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03892-0/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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Cerny892recon 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRUCE CERNY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON

TERMS, 

Respondent. __________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 05-3892 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

(Docket No. 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Prison Terms’

2003 decision finding him unsuitable for parole. The parole hearing occurred at the

California State Prison - Folsom located in Represa, California. Petitioner is currently

incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, California located in

Riverside County, which is within the venue of the Central District of California.

On October 14, 2005, the Court transferred the instant petition to the Central

District of California, the location of petitioner’s confinement. Venue in a habeas action

is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d); however, the district of confinement is the preferable forum to review the

**Original filed 9/26/06**

Case 5:05-cv-03892-JF Document 5 Filed 09/26/06 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Cerny892recon 2

execution of a sentence, such as a parole denial claim. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a);

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration as to the Court’s transfer order.

DISCUSSION

Where the court’s ruling has not resulted in a final judgment or order,

reconsideration of the ruling may be sought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, which provides that any order which does not terminate the action is

subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 11

v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

In the Northern District of California, no motion for reconsideration may be

brought without leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the

moving party must specifically show: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court

before entry of the interlocutory order for which the reconsideration is sought, and that

in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the emergence of new

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest

failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before

such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

The Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to establish any of the criteria set

forth above. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (docket no. 4) is

DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

9/21/06 /s/jeremy fogel

Case 5:05-cv-03892-JF Document 5 Filed 09/26/06 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Cerny892recon 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Bruce Cerny

C-21979

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 2349

Blythe, CA 92226

Case 5:05-cv-03892-JF Document 5 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 3