Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01633-19/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER SHANE LANGSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

No. 2:12-cv-1633 CKD P

ORDER

Per order of the Ninth Circuit dated April 25, 2016 (ECF No. 110), the court construes the 

document filed by petitioner on January 8, 2016 (ECF No. 106) as a motion for reconsideration of 

the court’s December 11, 2015 denial of petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and denial 

of a certificate of appealability (ECF No 101). A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under 

either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah 

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if 

the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 

Id. at 1263.

/////

 

1

 The parties have consented to all matters in the case being before a United States Magistrate 

Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Case 2:12-cv-01633-CKD Document 111 Filed 04/26/16 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

Petitioner fails to point to any newly discovered evidence. Petitioner fails to make any 

coherent argument suggesting that either the court’s denial of his habeas petition or denial of a 

certificate of appealability is erroneous or manifestly unjust. There has been no change in 

controlling law. For these reasons, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

A review of the court’s file reveals that on February 1, 2016, the court improperly ruled 

on petitioner’s January 28, 2016 request for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 107) as that 

request was meant for the Ninth Circuit. Good cause appearing, the court will vacate the ruling

(ECF No. 108) on that request. Again, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability 

with respect to the denial of petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No 106) is denied; and

2. The court vacates its February 1, 2016 ruling (ECF No. 108) upon petitioner’s January 

28, 2016 request for certificate of appealability (ECF No. 107).

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit.

Dated: April 26, 2016

1

lang1633.mfr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-01633-CKD Document 111 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 2