Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01614/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01614-6/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

JOSEPH AUGUST MARSALA,

Petitioner,

v.

HEIDI LACKNER,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-1614 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document the court 

construes as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a writ 

of habeas corpus. A court 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.

Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence and there has been no change in the 

law. Furthermore, the court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is 

neither clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust.

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01614-CKD Document 66 Filed 09/27/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 

(ECF No. 65) is denied.

Dated: September 27, 2016

1

mars1614.mfr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01614-CKD Document 66 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2