Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01014/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01014-9/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

Case No. 1-8-cv-1014-JF (E.D. Cal.)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

Patrick Paul PRINCE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Michael MARTEL, Acting Warden of Mule Creek

State Prison,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1-8-cv-1014-JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 52]

Petitioner seeks post-judgment relief from this Court’s order denying his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No 48) and the judgment entered pursuant thereto (Doc. No. 49). He

argues that he should be relieved from the judgment because the Court did not specify its

standard of review when it found that his due-process rights were not violated in the underlying

state-court proceedings. (See Doc. No. 48 at 3.) However, Petitioner’s due-process claim lacks

merit under any standard of review.

Petitioner further contends that the Court prematurely denied a certificate of appealability

by including such denial in its order denying the petition. However, while district courts

previously determined whether to grant a certificate of appealability only after judgment had been

entered, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts now provides that “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability

Case 1:08-cv-01014-JF Document 54 Filed 08/25/10 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

Case No. 1-8-cv-1014-JF (E.D. Cal.)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

(DPSAGOK)

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant”; this is precisely what the Court did.

Petitioner’s remaining arguments amount to requests for reconsideration of arguments

that previously were considered and rejected. (See id. at 4–5.) Petitioner sets forth no basis to

reconsider that which has already been decided.

Accordingly, and good cause appearing therefor, the motion for relief from judgment is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/23/2010 _______________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-01014-JF Document 54 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2