Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01526-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:14-cv-01456-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(Doc. 44)

Petitioner Victor Charles Fourstar, Jr., is a federal prisoner whose petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 was denied on June 30, 2016.1 Petitioner moves, 

pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 59(e), to alter or amend the judgment denying the petition to a dismissal 

without prejudice that will permit him to continue to pursue his claims. Petitioner contends the 

Supreme Court’s recent decision in Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S.Ct. 1899 (2016), establishes 

a new basis for habeas relief.

The Williams holding has no application to the petition in the above-captioned matter, 

which addressed various disciplinary actions against Petitioner during his confinement. The issue 

addressed in Williams was whether recusal was required of a State Supreme Court judge who, 

while he was a District Attorney, had authorized bringing capital charges against Williams. 

Petitioner’s argument is based on the Montana District Court proceedings that led to his 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 51 Filed 07/27/16 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

2

conviction and sentencing to federal prison, not to any of the disciplinary proceedings addressed 

in this action.

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to 

F.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01526-DAD-SAB Document 51 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 2