Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06657/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06657-4/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

 The court notes that Plaintiff has also appealed this order. In general, the filing a notice 1

of appeal transfers jurisdiction over the matters appealed to the court of appeals, and the district

court generally is divested of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. 

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Mayweathers

v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9 Cir. 2001). However, a notice of appeal from a th

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS REYES, )

)

Petitioner, )

v. )

)

)

W. J. SULLIVAN, )

 )

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6657 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

(Document #27)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 19, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to hold his petition in

abeyance while he exhausts an additional claim. In his July 19, 2006 motion, Petitioner claimed

the issues he wished to exhaust are that he is actually innocent of the charge of assault with a

deadly weapon and related due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. On August

4, 2006, the Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s request. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that

Petitioner sought an opportunity to exhaust a claim that he is innocent of assault with a deadly

weapon, but Plaintiff was only convicted of assault on an inmate. On October 20, 2006,

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this order. 

1

Case 1:04-cv-06657-AWI-WMW Document 28 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 4
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

nonappealable order will not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners by

Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9 Cir. 1993); United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, th

838 (9 Cir.1981); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9 Cir.1966) (en banc). th th

Where a notice of appeal fails to transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, jurisdiction remains

in the district court because jurisdiction “cannot float in the air.” Estate of Conners by Meredith

v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9 Cir. 1995); Ruby, 365 F.2d at 388. The Magistrate Judge’s

th

order denying Petitioner’s request to hold this action in abeyance is not an order that can be

appealed. Thus, this court maintains jurisdiction over this action and may rule on Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration.

2

The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d

1185, 1198 (9 Cir.1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9 Cir.1992). th th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the th

court to rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112,

1116 (D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with

the Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands

Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Motions to reconsider are committed

to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.

1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must

th

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665

(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1987). th

When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires a party to show

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” The court reviews a

motion to reconsider a Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”

standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The court has reviewed Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the Magistrate Judge’s

Case 1:04-cv-06657-AWI-WMW Document 28 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 4
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 3

order denying abeyance, and Petitioner’s motion for abeyance. The Magistrate Judge’s ruling

was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In his motion, Petitioner states that the Magistrate

Judge found allowing exhaustion would be futile because Petitioner wanted to exhaust a claim of

actual innocense to the crime of assault with a deadly weapon – a crime Petitioner had not been

convicted of. Petitioner admits that he made a mistake about the crime he was convicted of

violating, and Petitioner states he wants to file a claim in state court alleging actual innocense of

the crime of assault on an inmate. Because Petitioner is now attempting to exhaust the issue of

his innocense to the crime for which he was convicted, Petitioner claims allowing exhaustion

would not be futile.

In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the Supreme Court held that

district courts have discretion, in limited circumstances, under AEDPA to hold mixed petitions in

abeyance, instead of dismissing them, when the petitioner needs to return to state court to exhaust

claims. The Supreme Court recognized that, without an abeyance procedure, the district court's

dismissal, because of crowded dockets, may occur after the limitations period expires for filing a

proper application in federal court and deprive the petitioner of any chance to have a federal

court review his federal claims. Rhines, 125 S.Ct. at 1533-34. Abeyance is proper, however, only

in limited circumstances, otherwise "[s]tay and abeyance, if employed too frequently, has the

potential to undermine the[ ] twin purposes [of exhaustion and finality]." Id. at 1534. Abeyance is

appropriate only when the "petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted

claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Id. at 1535. The Supreme Court noted that, even if

abeyance is granted, "district courts should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner's trip to

state court and back." Id. at 1535.

Even were the court to conclude that the claim Petitioner wants to exhaust is no longer

meritless because Petitioner is claiming innocense of the same crime he was actually convicted of

violating, Petitioner has not met the other Rhines facts. Specifically, Petitioner has failed to

Case 1:04-cv-06657-AWI-WMW Document 28 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

convince this court that he had good cause for failing to exhaust this claim earlier. Petitioner has

merely alleged why he is innocent of the crime of assault on an inmate. Petitioner has failed to

adequately explain his reasons for not exhausting this claim earlier. Thus, even assuming

Petitioner made a mistake in his original motion for abeyance by citing to the wrong statute, and

the Magistrate Judge denied relief based on this mistake, Petitioner has still not shown that

abeyance is warranted.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06657-AWI-WMW Document 28 Filed 10/24/06 Page 4 of 4