UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
July 22, 2008
CHAUNCEY RENEE SIMPSON, PETITIONER,
MARGUERITA PEREZ, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 10)
Petitioner, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a decision by the Board of Prison Terms ("Board") that he is unsuitable for parole. On May 29, 2008, the court denied petitioner's section 2254 petition. Petitioner has filed this motion for reconsideration. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Although couched in broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981).
In the present motion, petitioner does not indicate what provision of Rule 60(b) applies to his case. Petitioner does not make a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. He does not set forth any newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any grounds for finding that the judgment is void or has been satisfied. Nor does he set forth any other reason justifying relief. Petitioner's arguments are merely a restatement of issues the court considered and rejected. Petitioner may raise such arguments on appeal, but they are not grounds for reconsideration. See id. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED (docket no. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.