Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00248/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00248-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS L. MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNNAMED RESPONDENTS, 

RON BARNES, EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,

and MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.12cv00248 AJB (DHB)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

[Doc. No. 19]

Presently before the court is petitioner Travis L. Montgomery's pro se request for a certificate of

appealability. (Doc. No. 19). Petitioner's request was included in his Notice of Appeal to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. No. 18). 

On November 1, 2012, this Court issued an opinion and order adopting Magistrate Judge

Bartick's report and recommendation and denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus. In the same

order, the Court also denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Because the Court has already ruled

on this issue, the court construes the instant motion as a motion for reconsideration of the November 1,

2012, order.

"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. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Similarly, a motion for reconsideration is

1 12cv00248

Case 3:12-cv-00248-AJB-DHB Document 21 Filed 11/29/12 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

"an improper vehicle to introduce evidence previously available or to tender new legal theories." 

Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d 1231, 1239 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd.,

804 F.3d 398, 404 (7th Cir. 1986)).

Petitioner has not presented any new evidence in his motion to reconsider. Nor has Petitioner

pointed to an intervening change in controlling law. In fact, Petitioner does not address the Court's

previous denial of a certificate of appealability or the Court’s basis for denial at all. Accordingly,

reconsideration is not appropriate in this instance.

For these reasons, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability be,

and it hereby is, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 12cv00248

Case 3:12-cv-00248-AJB-DHB Document 21 Filed 11/29/12 Page 2 of 2