Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05744/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05744-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LUCIUS OLIVER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-05744 ALA HC

vs.

MIKE E. KNOWLES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On January 8, 2007, petitioner filed a motion asking that the court reconsider its

April 14, 2005 order denying petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing. 

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “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.” Id. at 1263.

/////

/////

/////

Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court

finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the April 14, 2005 order denying the evidentiary

Case 1:03-cv-05744-ALA Document 35 Filed 08/13/07 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

hearing is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. Finally, there has been no intervening

change in controlling law. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 8, 2007, motion

for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: August 13, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

 Sitting by Designation

Case 1:03-cv-05744-ALA Document 35 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 2