Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00645/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00645-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Leon Greenhill
Petitioner
USA
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LEON GREENHILL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-00645 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN

PART

[Doc. #11]

ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER OF AUGUST

29, 2007, DISMISSING CASE

[Doc. #9]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of coram nobis. 

On July 23, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered. On August 29, 2007, the

undersigned issued an Order adopting the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissing the case,

and directing that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On September 10, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration entitled, “Motion to

Alter or Amend Judgment.” 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

Case 1:07-cv-00645-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 10/04/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner contends his petition for writ of coram nobis was converted to a petition for writ of

habeas corpus by the Court. The Court assumes Petitioner makes this argument because the order of

August 29, 2007, made reference to a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the order summary. This

language was included in error. As discussed within the Order and in the Findings and

Recommendation, the Court considered the petition for writ of coram nobis and dismissed it because

coram nobis relief is not available to challenge habeas petitions concerning a state conviction.

Petitioner’s motion presents no other tenable grounds for reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART;

2) The Order of August 29, 2007, is corrected as follows: On page 2, line 16, the words

“Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” are replaced with “Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis”;

3) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in all other respects. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00645-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 10/04/07 Page 2 of 2