Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00666/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00666-1/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

18cv666-WQH-BLM

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNIE ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

GOV. JERRY BROWN; 

MAUREEN F. HALLAHAN, 

Superior Court Judge,

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv666-WQH-BLM

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On April 2, 2018, Petitioner Bennie Anderson filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). On April 5, 2018, Petitioner filed an 

Amended Petition and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2, 3). Because 

Petitioner challenged extradition proceedings, the Court construed the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus to be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 5 at 6). On April 18, 

2018, the Court granted the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismissed the Petition, 

and granted a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 5). The Clerk of Court entered 

judgment. (ECF No. 6). 

On April 27, 2018, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 10). 

Case 3:18-cv-00666-WQH-BLM Document 25 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv666-WQH-BLM

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

On June 26, 2018, Petitioner filed a “writ coram vobis” which largely repeats the 

arguments presented in his earlier filings. (ECF No. 19). 

On June 29, 2018, Petitioner filed a “motion for reconsideration on a timeless issue.” 

(ECF No. 21). Petitioner states that he “moves for reconsideration of this case in light of 

his resent [sic] discovery of the 1988 case decission [sic] in Anderson v. Morris case no # 

C-1-88-0627, the Ohio Federal Court decission [sic] in which, Cleveland case CR 203616 

was found to be a misconviction in a timeless (in rem) decission [sic] by federal district 

Jurist Herman Jacob Webber, and sent for Habeas Corpus hearing on October 27th, 1988.” 

(ECF No. 21). 

On July 5, 2018, the Court issued a minute order requiring Respondent to file a 

response to Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on or before July 11, 2018. (ECF No. 

22). 

On July 10, 2018, Respondent filed a response pursuant to the Court’s Order. (ECF 

No. 23). Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion for 

reconsideration in light of the notice of appeal. Respondent contends that Petitioner’s 

arguments were previously raised and considered in this Court. Respondent further 

contends that Petitioner “does not rely on an intervening change of relevant law, 

demonstrate the availability of new evidence, or establish the need to correct clear error or 

prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 5. Respondent asserts that case number 203616, which 

Plaintiff represents as a “misconviction,” is not the basis for Petitioner’s extradition to the 

State of Ohio. Id. at 4; see also ECF No. 21.

RULING OF THE COURT

The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction. 

See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam) 

(“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers 

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those 

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). The filing of a notice of appeal does not 

divest the Court of jurisdiction if it is filed while there is a pending motion for 

Case 3:18-cv-00666-WQH-BLM Document 25 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv666-WQH-BLM

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

reconsideration. See United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i)). In this case, Petitioner filed this motion 

for reconsideration over two months after filing the notice of appeal. (ECF Nos. 10, 21). 

There were no pending motions for reconsideration at the time Petitioner filed the notice 

of appeal. Accordingly, this Court was divested of jurisdiction upon the filing of the notice 

of appeal on April 27, 2018. (ECF No. 10). 

In addition, Petitioner fails to provide grounds for any reconsideration of the Court’s 

Order denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. “[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 the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 

179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Petitioner fails to establish any newly discovered 

evidence, clear error, or intervening change in controlling law sufficient to justify 

reconsideration. Kona Enters. Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(describing reconsideration as an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conversation of judicial resources.”). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (ECF 

No. 21). 

Dated: July 12, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00666-WQH-BLM Document 25 Filed 07/12/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3