UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 12, 2011
FELLER, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION [Docs. 74, 75, 76]
On February 3, 2009, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied on the merits and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent.
On February 6, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on February 9, 2009.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on February 9, 2009, and the appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 28, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability.
On June 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, request to file a successive or second petition, and the appointment of counsel.
On June 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for immediate hearing and judicial complaint of abuse of discretion.
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.
The basis for Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is his continued disagreement with the Court's decision and analysis of the applicable factual circumstances. Petitioner is advised that his arguments were considered in the Court's ruling on the previous motion for relief, which motion was denied. Petitioner has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Petitioner's disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. For the same reasons previously stated, the instant motion is denied. Petitioner is further advised that this case is terminated. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the motion for relief from judgment in this Court have all been denied. Petitioner is informed that additional filings in this case will be STRICKEN without any consideration by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.