CEPEDA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:14-cv-2080 AC P.

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

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
Nature of Suit: 540 Mandamus & Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David Daniel Cepeda, Petitioner, Pro Se.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

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.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases