Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04486/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04486-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yao Chen
Petitioner
D. Davey
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YAO CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

D. DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-04486-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Petitioner filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 to challenge his 1995 state court conviction. On December 7, 2015, the Court issued an 

order to show cause why the petition should not be granted. On January 29, 2016, the Court 

denied petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel.

Petitioner has moved for reconsideration of the denial of his request for appointment of 

counsel. Where the court’s ruling has not resulted in a final judgment or order, reconsideration of 

the ruling may be sought under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 

provides that any order which does not terminate the action is subject to revision at any time 

before the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “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.” School 

Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner has not shown newly 

discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice or an intervening change in the controlling law 

with regard to his request for counsel. The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely. Petitioner’s opposition 

was due on or before March 3, 2016. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration appears to address 

Case 4:15-cv-04486-HSG Document 27 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

some aspects of the motion to dismiss. If petitioner wishes to present additional arguments in 

opposition to the motion to dismiss, be must do so no later than July 18, 2016. Respondent shall 

file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any 

additional opposition.

No further extensions will be granted. If petitioner does not file an opposition by July 18, 

2016, the motion to dismiss shall be deemed submitted as of July 18, 2016.

This order terminates Docket No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/13/2016

Case 4:15-cv-04486-HSG Document 27 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2