Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00518-4/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

1 After receipt of petitioner’s request, filed July 10,

2007, the court directed respondent to file a response on or

before July 18, 2007. (Docket #38.) Respondent filed its

opposition on July 17, 2007 (Docket #39).

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOHN H. PIRTLE,

NO. CIV. S-04-518 FCD KJM

Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON

TERMS, et al.,

Respondents.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on petitioner’s request for

reconsideration1 of the court’s order of June 25, 2007, granting

respondent’s request for a stay of the court’s remedial order

(Docket #25) that had required the Board of Parole Hearings to

set petitioner a release date no later than June 28, 2007.2 Fed.

Rs. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). By the instant motion, petitioner

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 40 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

contends “new facts” justify reconsideration of the court’s stay

order and warrant the court lifting the stay and ordering

petitioner released pending appeal. See School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration, including

“newly discovered evidence”). Specifically, petitioner argues

that the court should reconsider its order granting a stay

because after the order was issued, respondent filed a request in

the Ninth Circuit to have the appellate briefing schedule and

appeal in this case stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution

of petitions for rehearing in Irons v. Carey, 479 F.3d 658 (9th

Cir. 2007), a case raising the same critical issues involved in

this case.

Said procedural motion in the appellate court is not a “new”

fact impacting the stay order in this court. For evidence to be

considered "new" for the purposes of Rules 59(e)/60(b), it must

be of such a character that it would change the outcome of the

court’s prior decision. See Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning

Agency, 622 F. Supp. 121, 122 (D. Nev. 1985). Here, if the Ninth

Circuit grants respondent’s request for a stay of the appeal,

such order would not be contrary to this court’s June 25 order,

but rather, in line with and supportive of this court’s

imposition of the stay, which was based, in part, on the court’s

finding that respondent has raised “substantial issues . . . on

which [it] may well prevail on appeal.” (Mem. & Order, filed

June 25, 2007, 3:15-17.) 

At the time this court issued its order granting respondent

a stay, the Ninth Circuit on its own motion had stayed a similar

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 40 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

case pending the resolution of the petitions for rehearing and

rehearing en banc in Irons (see Adams v. Butler, No. 05-16780

(9th Cir. June 21, 2007). Since this court’s order, the Ninth

Circuit, again on its own motion, stayed three additional cases

pending the resolution of Irons (Hatcher v. Carey, No. 06-17066

(9th Cir. June 28, 2007); Rodriguez v. Butler, No. 05-17081 (9th

Cir. June 28, 2007); Tolliver v. Sisto, No. 7-14347 (9th Cir.

June 28, 2007)). In each of these cases, the issues on appeal,

regarding the applicability of the “some evidence” test and

continued reliance on a petitioner’s crime to find him unsuitable

for parole, are the same as the issues in this case–-issues which

this court has already determined warrant imposition of a stay of

the court’s remedial order. (Docket #35.)

As such, the court finds that there are no new facts

justifying reconsideration of its stay order. Petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: July 24, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 40 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3