UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 8, 2009
CHARLES DAVID WILLIAMS, JR., PETITIONER,
MIKE MARTEL, WARDEN RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. 32, 35]
On May 4, 2009, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied on the merits and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. (Court Docs. 30, 31.) On May 11, 2009, Petitioner filed two identical motions for reconsideration. (Court Docs. 32, 35.)
In his motion, Petitioner contends that the Court failed to consider newly discovered evidence in support of his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (Motions, at 3-5.) The court construes Petitioner's motions to be a request made pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on the grounds of: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud... of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied...; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Petitioner submits evidence in the form of disciplinary action taken against his trial attorney, James M. Kordell, by the State Bar of California. (See Supp. to Objections [Court Doc. 27], 8-9*fn1; Supp. to Ineffective Assist. Counsel Claim [Court Doc. 29], at 5, 7-12, 14-15, 20-24, 26-28, 30-31.) However, upon a review of Petitioner's filings, any disciplinary actions taken against Mr. Kordell occurred after the criminal trial in the instant matter and are unrelated to Petitioner's case.*fn2 Accordingly, this evidence does not provide a basis to vacate the judgment, and Petitioner's motion for reconsideration must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.