From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LaFlamme v. Lynch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
2:21-cv-00756-JAM-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00756-JAM-JDP (HC)

06-07-2022

DON LAFLAMME, Petitioner, v. JEFF LYNCH Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BE DENIED ECF NO. 18

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to obey court orders, and failure to state a claim on February 9, 2022, after petitioner declined to file an amended petition as directed. See ECF Nos. 13, 14, & 16. After the case was closed, petitioner filed a motion for “correction of rights.” ECF No. 18. Title notwithstanding, the substance of the filing indicates that it is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and I will treat it as such.

A motion to alter or amend a judgment may only be granted where “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). None of these circumstances apply. Petitioner references his liberty interests under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and argues that he has been prevented from appealing a right created by Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F.Supp. 1282 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1995), a case litigated by a class of inmates who alleged that mental health services provided by the California Department of Corrections were so inadequate as to violate their constitutional rights. Petitioner does not explain how Coleman, which concerned claims under section 1983, is relevant to this habeas case, however. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which it would be, given that the dismissal in this case was predicated on petitioner's failure to comply with court orders, failure to prosecute, and failure to state a viable claim in his initial petition. ECF Nos. 11, 14, & 16. In short, there is no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law that would support altering the district court's judgment.

I note that the initial petition did not concern Coleman, and instead attacked a 2018 conviction obtained in the Amador County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 1.

It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that petitioner's motion for correction of rights, ECF No. 18, be DENIED.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the findings and recommendations with the court. That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

LaFlamme v. Lynch

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 7, 2022
2:21-cv-00756-JAM-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)
Case details for

LaFlamme v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:DON LAFLAMME, Petitioner, v. JEFF LYNCH Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 7, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-00756-JAM-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 7, 2022)