From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cepeda v. Attorney General of State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 10, 2017
No. 2:14-cv-2080 AC P (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2017)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-2080 AC P

05-10-2017

DAVID DANIEL CEPEDA, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.


ORDER

Petitioner is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel. On September 8, 2014, he filed a petition for writ of corum nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. ECF No. 1. Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 3) and, on April 30, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing the petition without prejudice to refilling in state court. ECF No. 5. On January 3, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal. ECF No. 7. The court will deny the motion for reconsideration as untimely.

A motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) when filed within the time limit set by that rule. United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir. 1992). A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Judgment in this case was entered on April 30, 2015 (ECF No. 6) and, as such, petitioner is well past the twenty-eight day limit. Accordingly, the court will instead construe the instant motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The motion is also untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), however. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that "[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time . . . no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). The motion exceeds that deadline.

The court would not grant petitioner's motion even if it were timely. The court previously dismissed the petition after finding that coram nobis was not available to attack a state court conviction. ECF No. 5 at 2. Petitioner has failed to offer any legal argument which causes the court to question the validity of its previous finding.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7) is denied. DATED: May 10, 2017

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cepeda v. Attorney General of State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 10, 2017
No. 2:14-cv-2080 AC P (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2017)
Case details for

Cepeda v. Attorney General of State of California

Case Details

Full title:DAVID DANIEL CEPEDA, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 10, 2017

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-2080 AC P (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2017)