IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 26, 2012
MICHAEL WU, PETITIONER,
CMF WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
On March 9, 2011, the court dismissed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that, despite having been provided numerous opportunities to amend, petitioner's amended petitions and other miscellaneous briefs were unreasonably long and comprised of incomprehensible rambling and unexplained documents with inscrutable notations in the margins. Dckt. Nos. 55, 56. Because the court could not review the pleadings filed by petitioner, the petition was dismissed without further leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts. Dckt. No. 55 at 5-6. Petitioner has subsequently filed a pleading in which he requests that the court reopen the case. Dckt. No. 74. The court construes the pleading as a motion for relief from the March 9, 2011 judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief from judgment. He has made no claim of mistake, new evidence, fraud, or any other circumstance that would justify the requested relief. He has simply filed another lengthy brief that is comprised of incomprehensible rambling and unexplained documents. See Dckt. Nos. 74, 75.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner's May 25, 2012 motion, Dckt. No. 74, is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.