Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00071/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00071-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Lindel Lewis
Petitioner
United States District Court Northern District of California
Respondent
Elvin Valenzuela
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY LINDEL LEWIS,

Petitioner,

v.

ELVIN VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-00071-EMC 

ORDER 

Docket Nos. 35, 36

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. Docket No. 36. Petitioner states that his motion is made pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 52(b). Neither of those rules has any bearing on the Court’s 

denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus; Rule 30 is a discovery rule, and Rule 52 pertains to 

findings of fact and conclusions of law issued in a bench trial. A motion for reconsideration under 

Rule 59(e) “’should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court 

is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 

change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation 

omitted) (en banc). Petitioner has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, or a change 

in the law. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 36.

Petitioner’s request for an extension of the deadline to appeal the ruling on his motion for 

reconsideration is DENIED because it was premature in that the request for an extension of the 

deadline was filed before he ever saw the ruling on his motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 35. 

As the Court explained in its order filed November 23, 2015, a notice of appeal is not a difficult 

document to prepare, and often is less than one page long. The notice of appeal only needs to (a) 

provide Petitioner’s name and state that he is the party taking the appeal, (b) designate the 

Case 3:14-cv-00071-EMC Document 39 Filed 12/15/15 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

For the Northern District of California

judgment or order being appealed, and (c) name the court to which the appeal is taken, i.e., the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). The notice of appeal 

must be signed and must be filed in this Court. If Petitioner wants to file a notice of appeal from 

this order denying his motion for reconsideration, he may do so, but it should not take him more 

than thirty days to prepare such a short document. The deadline by which to file a notice of appeal

is “30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 

district court was correct in its procedural [rulings]” in the order denying the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus or in this order. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The denial of the 

certificate of appealability is without prejudice to Petitioner seeking a certificate from the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00071-EMC Document 39 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2