1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DON LAFLAMME, Case No. 2:21-cv-00756-JAM-JDP (HC) 10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 11 v. RECONSIDERATION BE DENIED 12 JEFF LYNCH ECF No. 18 13 Respondent. 14 15 This case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to obey court orders, and failure 16 to state a claim on February 9, 2022, after petitioner declined to file an amended petition as 17 directed. See ECF Nos. 13, 14, & 16. After the case was closed, petitioner filed a motion for 18 “correction of rights.” ECF No. 18. Title notwithstanding, the substance of the filing indicates 19 that it is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and I 20 will treat it as such. 21 A motion to alter or amend a judgment may only be granted where “(1) the district court is 22 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an 23 initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling 24 law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland,

(9th Cir. 2001). None of these 25 circumstances apply. Petitioner references his liberty interests under the First, Fourth, Eighth, 26 and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and argues that he has been prevented from 27 appealing a right created by Coleman v. Wilson,

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 1995), a case 28 litigated by a class of inmates who alleged that mental health services provided by the California 1 | Department of Corrections were so inadequate as to violate their constitutional rights. Petitioner 2 | does not explain how Coleman, which concerned claims under section 1983, is relevant to this 3 | habeas case, however. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which it would be, given that the 4 | dismissal in this case was predicated on petitioner’s failure to comply with court orders, failure to 5 || prosecute, and failure to state a viable claim in his initial petition. ECF Nos. 11, 14, & □□□□ In 6 | short, there is no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law that would 7 | support altering the district court’s judgment. 8 It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for correction of rights, ECF 9 | No. 18, be DENIED. 10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 11 | presiding over this case under

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 12 | Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days 13 | of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the 14 | findings and recommendations with the court. That document must be captioned “Objections to 15 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will then review the 16 | findings and recommendations under

(b)(1)(C). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ June 7, 2022 ow 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 ||§_ ———R_ 'T note that the initial petition did not concern Coleman, and instead attacked a 2018 28 | conviction obtained in the Amador County Superior Court. ECF No. | at 1.