Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01816/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01816-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lydia C. Hense
Respondent
Larry B. Moore
Petitioner

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

LARRY B. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

LYDIA C. HENSE,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-01816 LJO SMS (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[Docs. 17, 18]

Petitioner is a state prisoner and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, on December 13, 2007. On May 7, 2008, the Court dismissed the petition

because Petitioner did not challenge the duration or legality of his confinement or sentence under

§ 2254. (Court Docs. 5, 14.) The court noted that Petitioner’s claim were more appropriately

raised by way of a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court’s dismissal

was without prejudice, to re-filing an appropriate action. 

On June 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which this Court

construes as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Court Doc. 17.) Then on June 24, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, along

with a request for a certificate of appealability. (Court Doc. 18.) 

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Rule 60(b) allows reconsideration if one of the following grounds is shown: (1) mistake,

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

 Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements discussed above under Rule 60(b). As

Case 1:07-cv-01816-LJO -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/26/08 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

stated in the Court’s prior order, Petitioner’s claims in his petition concerned the conditions of

his confinement and did not challenge the duration or legality of his confinement or sentence

under § 2254. The Court advised Petitioner that he could raise his claims by way of filing a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner contends that this Court should have

transferred the action to the state court, however, Petitioner provides no authority for such

proposition. In fact, such action is unnecessary. Petitioner is capable of filing a proper action in

this Court or in state court, and this Court is not required to transfer such action upon Petitioner’s

request. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

B. Certificate of Appealability

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal and request for a certificate of appealability. When

a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

underlying constitutional claims, the petitioner must show, in order to obtain a certificate of

appealability: (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid

claim of a denial of a constitutional right; and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000). While both showings must be made to obtain a certificate of appealability, “a court

may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to

resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Slack, 529

U.S. at 485. 

The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing. The Court does

not find that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition was properly

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim under § 2254. Petitioner has not made the

required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court

hereby DENIES Petitioner's motion for certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01816-LJO -SMS Document 19 Filed 06/26/08 Page 2 of 2