Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06502/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06502-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE L. MORENA aka

JOSE L. MORALES MIRANDA,

Petitioner,

v.

S.J. RYAN, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 04-6502 AWI SMS HC

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

NOTICE OF APPEAL AS MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING SAID

MOTION

[Doc. 25]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s notice of appeal, filed September 28, 2006, along

with a request for a certificate of appealability. (Court Doc. 25.) In his request for a certificate

of appealability, Petitioner identifies the Court’s order of July 18, 2006, as denying his petition

for writ of habeas corpus. However, on July 18, 2006, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to

amend the petition. (Court Doc. 24.) That order did not address or resolve the merits of

Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. In addition, the Court’s July 18, 2006, order,

denying his motion to amend the petition, is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1291; Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337

U.S. 541 (1949). 

Petitioner has not followed the proper procedure for requesting reconsideration of an

order issued by a Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to Local Rule 72-303(c), “A party seeking

Case 1:04-cv-06502-AWI-SMS Document 26 Filed 11/20/06 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

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling shall file a request for reconsideration by a Judge

with the Clerk and serve the Magistrate Judge and all parties.” “The standard that the assigned

Judge shall use in all such requests is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard set forth

in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). 

The Court will construe Petitioner’s notice of appeal, as a motion for reconsideration

pursuant to Local Rule 72-303(c). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling was “clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.” Petitioner sought to amend the

petition a year after the petition was filed and after it was fully briefed. He provided no reason

for not including the new claim in the original or amended petition. As such, the Magistrate

Judge properly exercised her discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition. 

Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 577 (9 Cir. 2000) (it is within the court’s discretion to deny th

leave to amend if petitioner, without explanation, waits several years or several months before

filing his proposed amendment.) 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s notice of appeal, construed as a motion for reconsideration, is

DENIED; and

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to disregard Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06502-AWI-SMS Document 26 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2