Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02463/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02463-3/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

 Pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), for pro se prisoner litigants seeking 1

reconsideration, the court has calculated the 10-day period from the date the motion was

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT CRUZ, No. 2:06-cv-2463-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

VEAL, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is a motion for reconsideration of

the portion of the magistrate judge’s November 14, 2006, order denying appointment of counsel.

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303(b), “rulings by Magistrate

Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . .

. from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.” Here, the motion for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s order was filed on December 13, 2006, which is more than 10 days from the

date of service of the magistrate judge’s order. 

1

Case 2:06-cv-02463-MCE -CMK Document 13 Filed 01/29/07 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

delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. Otherwise, the 10-day period has been

calculated based on the date the motion for reconsideration was actually filed. 

2

The motion is, therefore, untimely.

In any event, pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate

judge’s order shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the

entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. The November 14, 2006, order denying counsel is, therefore,

affirmed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Dated: January 26, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02463-MCE -CMK Document 13 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2