(HC) Warrior v. Price

Opinion

MARCELLUS GREENE aka ) Case No.: 1: 22-cv-01639 JLT CDB MARVELLOUS AFRIKAN WARRIOR1, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS Petitioner, ) TO THE ORDER DATED AUGUST 27, 2024, ) CONSTRUED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR v. ) AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL ) RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e) BRANDON PRICE, Executive Director of the ) Dept’ of State Hospitals, ) (Doc. 15) ) Respondent. ) )

Petitioner is detained in Coalinga State Hospital, and he filed a petition of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court entered judgment in this matter on August 28, 2024, following the Court’s dismissal for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey the Court’s order, and failure to state a claim on August 27, 2024. (Docs. 13, 14.) Following the dismissal of the petition, Petitioner filed objections, referencing the Court’s denial of his certificate of appealability on August 27, 2024. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Petitioner seems to assert his innocence for the underlying conviction, and his civil commitment to the state hospital. (Id. at 2-3.) Because the objections were filed within 28 days of

1 Petitioner identified himself as “Marvellous Afrikan Warrior” in the caption of his petition, but also indicated the petition was “on behalf of Marcellus Alexander Greene Sr, who is right here.” (See Doc. 1 at 1, 8 [emphasis omitted].) The California Court of Appeals previously observed that at times, Marcellus Greene referred to himself as “Marvellous Afrikan Warrior,” “King Marcellus” and “Afrikan Warrior.” See People v. Greene, No. B315882, 2022 WL 2826299, at **2, 4 (Cal. App. Ct. July 20, 2022). For the sake of clarity, the Court indicates both Petitioner’s legal name and preferred name in the caption. the final judgment, the Court construes the document as a motion as made pursuant to Federal Rule o Civil Procedure 59(e) to modify the judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finalit and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 □□□□ Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883). Petitioner does not dispute the underlying facts and analysis concerning his failure to prosecut this action and failure to comply with the Court’s order to file an amended petition, which formed the basis of the Court’s order for terminating sanctions. For this reason, the Court finds no basis to reope the action or vacate the entry of judgment. As to the denial of a certificate of appealability, Petitiones fails to present any newly discovered evidence, show the Court committed a clear error in evaluating whether such a certificate is appropriate, or argue an intervening change in controlling law necessitat amendment of the Court’s order. See Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. Petitioner’s general disagreement with the denial of a certificate of appealability is insufficient to support the relief requested. Cromer Songer, 2016 WL 3351408, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2016) (disagreement with the Court’s decision is ) insufficient to warrant reconsideration). Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: Petitioner’s objections, construed as motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED Dated: _ September 24, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE