Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05748/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05748-1/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

RICKY TYRONE FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

ROSIE B. GARCIA, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 99-5748 OWW DLB HC

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS FILED MARCH 2, 2006, AS

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

DENYING SAID MOTION

[Doc. 146]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This case is ready for review on the merits, as Respondent filed

an answer on November 12, 2003, and Petitioner filed a traverse on February 26, 2004. (Court

Docs. 127, 134.) 

On November 30, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition pending exhaustion

of a new claim in state court. (Court Doc. 142.) On December 9, 2005, Respondent filed an

opposition to Petitioner’s motion. (Court Doc. 143.) On January 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a reply

to Respondent’s opposition. (Court Doc. 144.) On January 25, 2006, the Magistrate Judge

assigned to this action denied Petitioner’s motion to stay. (Court Doc. 145.) 

On March 2, 2006, Petitioner filed “objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s January 25,

2006, order denying his motion to stay. (Court Doc. 146.) The Court construes Petitioner’s

“objections” as a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to Local

Rule 72-303(c). 

Case 1:99-cv-05748-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 10/11/06 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

Local Rule 72-303(c) states:

A party seeking 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. Such request shall specifically designate the ruling, or part

thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection. . . . 

 

In order for Petitioner to succeed on a motion for reconsideration, he must demonstrate

that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 72-

303(f); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 

Petitioner has failed to meet his burden. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, the holdings

in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005) were decided long after Petitioner’s conviction became final on November 27, 1995, and

the holdings establish new procedural rules that do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral

review. United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1121 (9 Cir. 2005); Shardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d th

1025, 1027, 1038 (9 Cir. 2005); Cook v. United States, 386 F.3d 949, 950 (9 Cir. 2004). As th th

such, Petitioner has not, and cannot, demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling is “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law,” and his motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05748-OWW -DLB Document 150 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 2