(HC) Nelson v. Covello

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 James Denerick Nelson, Jr., Case No. 2:24-cv-0758-KJM-AC (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 Patrick Covello, Warden., 15 Respondent. 16 17 The court previously denied James Denerick Nelson Jr.’s petition for habeas corpus. See 18 Order (Feb. 7, 2025), ECF No. 25. Nelson has now filed an “Inscription for relief,” (Mot.) ECF 19 No. 27 at 1, which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 60(b)(6). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 21 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 22 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 23 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. 24 Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). While the court does not question the 25 sincerity of Nelson’s filing, his requests as relevant to this case are difficult to understand and at 26 least part of the submission seems to be directed to the Ninth Circuit and not this court. See Mot. 27 at 16–80. Nelson has not provided evidence of an intervening change in the law, new evidence, 28 or evidence of clear error by this court. His motion for reconsideration is denied. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Nelson’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 27, is denied; and 3 2. The clerk of the court is instructed to not docket similar submissions from Nelson in 4 the future. 5 This order resolves ECF No. 27. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | DATED: March 4, 2025. oUt 9 = | yy FV □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28