Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06431/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06431-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN ELLIS PORTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL ADAMS, WARDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 03-6431 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. 81]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS 

[Doc. 87]]

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 motion for

reconsideration.

On December 13, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in the

amended petition. On March 19, 2007, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion to

dismiss. On August 28, 2007, the court entered an order requiring Respondent to provide a

supplemental brief on the application of the actual innocence gateway to this case. In

compliance with the court’s order Respondent filed that supplemental brief on September 7,

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 88 Filed 03/31/08 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

2007. On September 14, 2008, the court entered judgment for Respondent.

On October 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the

court had failed to consider his reply to Respondent’s supplemental brief. The court did not

provide for such a response in its order requiring Respondent to file a supplemental brief, and

Petitioner did not have a right to file a response. The court required Respondent to file the

supplemental brief in order to address issues raised by Petitioner in his opposition to the

motion to dismiss. Thus, Petitioner had already had the opportunity to brief the issues. 

Therefore, was no procedural basis for Petitioner to file a response to Respondent’s

supplemental brief.

There being no basis for reconsideration in this case, Petitioner’s motion is HEREBY

DENIED. 

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is HEREBY GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06431-WMW Document 88 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2