Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01550/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01550-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Clark
Petitioner
Stuart Sherman
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

PAUL CLARK,

Petitioner,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden, Corcoran 

State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-01550-LJO-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AS UNTIMELY

(Doc. 12)

Petitioner, Paul Clark, a state prisoner represented by attorney Vicken H. Hagopian, 

proceeds with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed October 12, 

2016. On October 14, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for temporary restraining order. The Court 

referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 

and 304. 

On October 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a recommendation that the 

Court dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction and, in the absence of jurisdiction, deny the 

motion for temporary restraining order. The findings and recommendations, which were served 

on both parties on the same date, provided that objections could be served within ten days and 

replies within five days after the filing of any objections. On October 20, 2016, Petitioner filed 

(1) objections to the finding and recommendation (Doc. 11) and (2) a motion for reconsideration 

(Doc. 12) regarding his motion for a temporary restraining order.

///

Case 1:16-cv-01550-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/21/16 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

In federal district court, motions for reconsideration are evaluated under F.R.Civ.P 59(e) 

or 60(a) or (b). In either case, the party must be seeking relief from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding. In this case, the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are pending, and 

there is no final judgment, order, or proceeding.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01550-LJO-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2