Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01849-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Edward Powell
Petitioner
D. Smith
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY EDWARD POWELL,

Petitioner,

v.

D. SMITH,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01849 OWW DLB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO AMEND PLEADING CONSTRUED AS

RULE 60(a) MOTION

[Doc. 9]

 On December 26, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation

recommending that the instant petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed, as the

claims were not cognizable. (Court Doc. 5.) Petitioner filed objections on January 8, 2008. 

(Court Doc. 6.) On February 14, 2008, the undersigned adopted the Findings and

Recommendation in full and judgment was entered. (Court Docs. 7, 8.) 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to amend the pleadings on February

28, 2008. (Court Doc. 9.) In his motion, Petitioner seeks clarification of the order of dismissal

under Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner continues to argue that the

presentence report contains inaccurate information regarding his convictions. 

Rule 60(a) states, pertinent part:

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and

errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at

any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice,

if any, as the court orders. 

Case 1:07-cv-01849-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/14/08 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

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 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). 

Although Petitioner states the evidence supports his contention, Petitioner does not set

forth any arguments or evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner’s

arguments present no basis for relief. As stated in the order of dismissal, Petitioner claims are

more appropriately raised via § 2255 in the sentencing court, and the fact that his prior challenges

have all been denied does not render such process inadequate of ineffective to proceed under §

2241. (See Court Doc. 7, at 2.) Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 A certificate of appealability shall not issue as no issue debateable among jurists of reason

has been presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01849-OWW -DLB Document 11 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 2