Raymond Thompkins v. Luis Martinez, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND THOMPKINS,

12 Petitioner, No. 2:23-cv-00449-TLN-CKD

13 14 v. ORDER LUIS MARTINEZ, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Raymond Thompkins’s 19 (“Petitioner”) Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s June 18, 2025 Order. (ECF No. 24.) No 20 opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s 21 motion. 22 On May 14, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 23 recommending Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be denied. (ECF 24 No. 21.) Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. On June 18, 25 2025, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations in full and closed the case. (ECF No. 26 22.) On the same day, the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment. (ECF No. 23.) Petitioner now 27 seeks reconsideration of the Court’s June 18, 2025 Order. (ECF No. 24.) 28 1 The Court may grant reconsideration under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 (“Rule”) 59(e) or 60(b). See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). A 3 motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than 28 days after 4 the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, a “motion for reconsideration” is 5 treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within 28 days of 6 entry of judgment; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or 7 order. Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016); see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, 8 Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). “Under Rule 59(e), a motion 9 for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 10 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 11 an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 12 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, Petitioner’s motion was filed within 28 days of entry of 13 judgment and is therefore considered a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). 14 Petitioner asserts he timely mailed a motion for stay and abeyance on June 13, 2025, 15 which he contends was prior to the Court’s deadline to file objections to the findings and 16 recommendations. (ECF No. 24 at 1.) Petitioner argues failure to consider his motion before 17 the Court entered judgment constitutes a denial of due process and as such, the dismissal should 18 be vacated. (Id. at 2–3.) 19 As an initial matter, the Court has not received Petitioner’s motion for stay and 20 abeyance. As such, the Court cannot consider any arguments which Plaintiff may have raised in 21 that motion. Second, the docket reflects Petitioner was served with the magistrate judge’s 22 May 14, 2025 findings and recommendations on May 14, 2025. Therefore, any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were due on or before May 28, 2025. To the extent 24 Petitioner raised any objections to the magistrate judge’s May 14, 2025 findings and 25 recommendations in his motion for stay and abeyance, the objections were untimely. Finally, 26 Petitioner does not provide any new evidence, point to clear error, or allege a change of 27 controlling law that would alter the Court’s ruling. See 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 28 665. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Petitioner has not established sufficient 2 grounds under Rule 59(e) to seek reconsideration of the Court’s June 18, 2025 Order. 3 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (ECF No. 24.) 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Date: September 9, 2025 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28