UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 23, 2010
GREGORY W. STEWART, PETITIONER,
DERRAL G. ADAMS, WARDEN RESPONDENT.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. 9]
On September 7, 2010, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed without prejudice as successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). On September 16, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal order.
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (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 (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Rather, Petitioner merely disagrees with the Court's order of dismissal and asks the Court to rethink what it has already decided. No new facts or circumstances are shown to warrant reconsideration of the Court's September 7, 2010, order. Petitioner's arguments present no basis for relief. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.