IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 26, 2012
EDWARD TERRELL, PETITIONER,
On August 31, 2011, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations in the above-captioned matter, recommending this matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the present petition was an unauthorized second or successive petition and therefore barred. (ECF 6.) On January 9, 2012, the undersigned adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and closed this case. (ECF 7.) On July 5, 2012, petitioner filed the pending motion, which the court construes as a request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 of the order adopting the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. (ECF 9.)
Rule 60(b) provides: "On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . 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 . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged . . .; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief." A Rule 60(b) motion "must be made within a reasonable time." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1).
In his request for reconsideration, petitioner contends he did not have access to the law library and was unable to access his property as of January 2012. (ECF 9.) This by itself does not demonstrate relief from judgment is warranted in accordance with Rule 60(b). Petitioner's request is accordingly denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.