Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01511-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD PAUL CHAPMAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1511 LKK KJM P

vs.

JIM TILTON,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On October 12, 2006, petitioner filed a motion asking that this court vacate it’s

September 29, 2006 order adopting the magistrate judge’s May 22, 2006 findings and

recommendations thereby dismissing this action.

A district 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.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01511-LKK -KJM Document 32 Filed 11/17/06 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

Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court

finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the September 29, 2006 order adopting the May 22,

2006 findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s October 12, 2006

motion for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: November 17, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01511-LKK -KJM Document 32 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2