Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01729/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01729-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ALLEN FALLS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-01729 OWW SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #49]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 14, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to deny counsel. He also moves for reconsideration of the

Magistrate Judge’s order denying an extension of time. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court

may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order where the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

With respect to the order denying the appointment of counsel, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the

ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006(a), counsel may be

appointed in the interest of justice. Here, the Magistrate Judge determined that the appointment of

counsel at the present time would serve no purpose since the case has already been briefed and is

pending a decision on the merits. Petitioner completely fails to demonstrate how this ruling is

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-01729-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/29/10 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

27

28

erroneous or contrary to law. 

With respect to the order denying an extension of time to file a traverse, this issue has been

addressed on countless occasions, both by the Magistrate Judge and the undersigned. Petitioner’s

repeated attempts to revisit this subject has become abusive of the court process. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, and

Petitioner is advised that further attempts to relitigate this issue will be stricken.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-01729-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2