Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cr-00168/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cr-00168-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
John Delos Wilson
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NOS. CR F 07-0168 LJO and CV F 09-

2060 LJO

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION

(Doc. 76.)

JOHN DELOS WILSON,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

On December 29, 2009, defendant John Delos Wilson (“defendant”) filed papers entitled

“Motion to Redress Habeas Corpus and Refile under 28 U.S.C. 2254.” This Court construes the papers

to seek to file a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and to seek reconsideration of this

Court’s December 4, 2009 order (“December 4 order”) to deny defendant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

DISCUSSION

Improper 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Application

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) permits a federal court to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas

corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” Defendant is a

federal prisoner and is not entitled to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Reconsideration

Defendant’s papers take issue with the December 4 order and denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. 

Defendant appears to seek reconsideration of the December 4 order.

1

Case 1:07-cr-00168-LJO Document 78 Filed 01/07/10 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

A basic principle of federal practice is that courts generally refuse to reopen decided matters. 

Magnesystems, Inc. v. Nikken, 933 F.Supp. 944, 948 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Reconsideration is an

“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9 Cir. 2003). A reconsideration motion “should th

not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th

Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1972 (1989). A reconsideration motion “is not a

vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the

merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp., 156 F.3d 136,

144 (2 Cir. 1998). nd

However, reconsideration is appropriate if the district court: (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence; (2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3)

is presented with an intervening change in controlling law. School District 1J, Multnomah County v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236, 114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). th

There may be other highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration. School District 1J, 5 F.3d

at 1263. Denial of reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion. School District 1J, 5 F.3d at

1262. 

A motion for reconsideration is restricted and serves “a limited function: to correct manifest

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Publisher’s Resource, Inc. v. Walker

Davis Publications, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7 Cir. 1985) (quoting Keene Corp. v. International th

Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665-666 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 388 (7 Cir. 1984)); see th

Novato Fire Protection Dist. v. United States, 181 F.3d 1135, 1142, n. 6 (9 Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 th

U.S. 1129, 120 S.Ct. 2005 (2000). Reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona

Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9 Cir. 2000). Reconsideration should not be th

used “to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter

previously decided.” See Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990). Under

this Court’s Local Rule 230(j), a party seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “what new or different

facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior

2

Case 1:07-cr-00168-LJO Document 78 Filed 01/07/10 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

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “whythe facts or circumstances were not shown

at the time of the prior motion.”

Defendant fails to substantiate reconsideration of the December 4 order. Defendant points to no

error and merely expresses his dissatisfaction with the December 4 order. No grounds exist for

reconsideration.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court DENIES defendant relief sought in his papers filed

on December 29, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cr-00168-LJO Document 78 Filed 01/07/10 Page 3 of 3