Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06945/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06945-2/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

ANTHONY ADAM ELIZALDI, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs.

SCOTT P. RAWERS,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

1:03-cv-06945-TAG HC

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS

MOTIONS (Docs. 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, & 36)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 30, 2003, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1). On October 15,

2004, Respondent filed his response. (Doc. 18). On March 29, 2007, the Court issued an Order

denying the petition on the merits. (Doc. 26). Also on March 29, 2007, the Clerk of the Court

entered judgment in favor of Respondent and closed the case. (Doc. 27). 

On April 16, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 28). On May 3,

2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Discovery and Production of Documents. (Doc. 30). On May

3, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 31). On July 26, 2007,

Petitioner filed a Motion requesting that the District Judge presiding over the case take note of a

Case 1:03-cv-06945-TAG Document 37 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 34). On July

26, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from

judgment. (Doc. 35). Finally, on September 6, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting a

ruling on his earlier motions. (Doc. 36). 

When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to set

forth new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion. Local Rule 78-

230(k)(3). 

In the present case, the Court finds Petitioner has presented no new or different facts or

circumstances from those that existed at the time he filed his petition. Rather, Petitioner simply

re-argues the same issues raised previously and rejected by the Court in its March 29, 2007

Order. The Court finds no basis to reconsider or modify its Order of March 29, 2007.

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The remaining motions—for evidentiary hearing, taking judicial notice of a Ninth Circuit

case, motion for production of documents, motion for relief from judgment, and for prompt

ruling–are untimely. The Court entered judgment and closed the case on March 29, 2007. The

appropriate time to pursue such motions was during the pendency of the petition, not after the

petition had been denied, judgment entered, and the case closed. While the Court will address

the Motion for Reconsideration and deny it, the other motions are moot because they seek relief

related to litigating a case that is no longer open and active. Therefore, they will be summarily

denied as untimely and moot.

ORDER. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28), is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. 30), is DENIED;

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 31), is DENIED;

4. Petitioner’s Motion to Take Notice (Doc. 34), is DENIED;

///

Case 1:03-cv-06945-TAG Document 37 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Petitioner’s Motion for Relief From Judgment (Doc. 35), is DENIED; and,

6. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 36), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-06945-TAG Document 37 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3