Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01722/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01722-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEFFON TERRELL SIMMS, No. 2:06-CV-01722-NRS

vs.

D.K. SISTO, WARDEN

ORDER

On January 19, 2010, Petitioner Simms filed a motion for reconsideration of

this Court’s Order dated January 4, 2010. Specifically, Simms moves this Court to

reconsider its decision denying habeas relief and denying Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration of the reassignment of the judge. For the reasons detailed below,

this Court denies Petitioner’s motion on both grounds.

I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF HABEAS DECISION

In short, Petitioner has offered no new theory, legal authority, or argument

as to why habeas relief was improperly denied. At most, it seems Petitioner now

argues that the delay in the decision constitutes grounds for habeas relief. 

However, he offers no authority or coherent argument in support of that claim. See

James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Conclusory allegations which are

not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”) (citing

Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970)). 

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 28 Filed 02/09/10 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

2

Moreover, habeas relief was not wholly denied Petitioner in this Court’s

Amended Order filed on January 8, 2010. The Court restates its order that

Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief, not longer than ten pages, within 30 days

of the filing of the amended order (January 8, 2010) addressing the impact of

Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) on Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment

Right to a Jury Trial claim. 

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REASSIGNMENT OF JUDGE

Petitioner now restates his same argument that it was improper for Chief

Judge Ishii of the United States District Court for the District of Eastern California

to transfer this case from Magistrate Judge Kimberly to Circuit Judge N.R. Smith

of the Ninth Circuit. He offers no new legal authority in support of this motion. 

Again, this Court sees no basis for this argument in either the Local Rules or the

Federal Code and accordingly dismisses the motion. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the habeas decision is

DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the reassignment of judge

is DENIED. 

DATED: February 8, 2010

 

Honorable N. Randy Smith

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01722-NRS Document 28 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2