United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. No.
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration of March 3, 2017. Petitioner
complains that he was not properly served with a copy of
Respondent's motion to dismiss. However, the Court
considered all of Petitioner's arguments in opposition to
Respondent's motion to dismiss which he had set forth in
his objections. Therefore, the motion will be DENIED.
28, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of
habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 4, 2016, Respondent
was directed to file a response to the petition. (Doc. No.
15.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on
November 30, 2016, claiming the petition was successive.
(Doc. No. 17.) On December 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion
for summary judgment arguing that Respondent had failed to
abide by time deadlines. (Doc. No. 18.) On January 10, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to
grant the motion to dismiss as successive. (Doc. No. 19.) In
addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Petitioner's motion for summary judgment be denied
because Respondent had in fact timely complied with all time
deadlines set by the Court. On January 17, 2017, Petitioner
filed a motion inquiring of the status of his motion for
summary judgment stating he had not received any response
from the government. (Doc. No. 20.) On January 19, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order advising Petitioner that it
had been recommended that his motion be denied, and that
Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. No. 21.)
He was further advised that the Findings and Recommendations
were pending objections from the parties. On January 20,
2017, Petitioner filed a motion to extend time to file
objections. (Doc. No. 22.) At this time, Petitioner stated he
had not yet received a copy of Respondent's motion to
dismiss. Before his motion was granted, Petitioner filed his
objections to the Findings and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 24.)
In said objections, Petitioner addressed Respondent's
motion to dismiss and his arguments in support. (Doc. No. 24
at pp. 4-12.) On February 8, 2017, Petitioner's extension
of time was granted nunc pro tunc to February 1,
2017. (Doc. No. 25.) On February 15, 2017, the Court
considered the Findings and Recommendations along with
Petitioner's objections. The Court adopted the Findings
and Recommendations, granted the motion to dismiss, and
denied the motion for summary judgment. On March 3, 2017,
Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. No. 28.)
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of
final orders of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a
district court to relieve a party from a final order or
judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence
. . .; (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). A motion under Rule
60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event
“not more than one year after the judgment, order, or
proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.
when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j)
requires a party to show the “new or different facts or
circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were
not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist
for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are committed to
the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin
Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers
v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To
succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water
Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665
(E.D.Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part
on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
Petitioner fails to meet the requirements for granting a
motion for reconsideration. Petitioner argues that he was not
served a copy of Respondent's motion to dismiss;
therefore, he was unable to address the arguments set forth
by Respondent. However, Petitioner did in fact address
Respondent's motion to dismiss in his objections, (Doc.
No. 24 at pp. 4-12), and the Court considered those arguments
prior to issuing its ruling. Therefore, there are no grounds
for reconsidering the order granting Respondent's motion.
it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 28) is DENIED.
 There was no indication in the
pleading that Petitioner had not been served with a copy of
the motion to dismiss. Petitioner's only argument was
that Respondent had ...