United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [RE: ECF 472]
LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
Melvin Russell “Rusty” Shields is a federal
prisoner serving a seventy-eight month term of imprisonment
following his conviction on thirty-two counts, including
conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, and
making false statements to a bank. Judgment, ECF 350. His
expected release date is September 28, 2020. Def. Motion for
Recon., Exh. B, ECF 472.
14, 2017, Shields filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§
2255 Motion”) and an Emergency Motion for Immediate
Release from prison (“Motion for Release”). Def.
§ 2255 Motion, ECF 462; Def. Motion for Release, ECF
463. The Court set a briefing schedule on Shields' §
2255 Motion and denied his Motion for Release. Order Setting
Briefing, ECF 466; Order Denying Motion for Release, ECF 467.
With respect to the Motion for Release, the Court indicated
that it lacked authority to grant Shields the relief he
requested, that is, outright release from prison or service
of the remainder of his sentence on home confinement. Order
Denying Motion for Release at 3, ECF 467. The Court stated
that it might have authority to grant bail pending resolution
of Shields' § 2255 Motion, citing United States
v. McCandless, 841 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2016), but it
concluded that Shields had not demonstrated that his is an
extraordinary case as required under McCandless.
Order Denying Motion for Release at 2-3, ECF 467. The Court
therefore denied the Motion for Release. Id. at 3.
seeks reconsideration of the denial of his Motion for
Release. Def. Motion for Recon., ECF 472. The motion for
reconsideration is DENIED for the reasons discussed below.
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly
address motions for reconsideration, courts in this district
and elsewhere permit such motions and apply the rules that
govern equivalent motions in civil proceedings. See,
e.g., United States v. Feathers, No. 14-CR-00531-LHK-1,
2017 WL 783947, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017)
(“[M]otions for reconsideration in criminal cases are
governed by the rules that govern equivalent motions in civil
proceedings.”); see also United States v.
Cohen, No. No. 2:17-cr-00114-APG-CWH, 2017 WL 3191507,
at *3 (D. Nev. July 27, 2017) (collecting cases). “In
ruling on motions for reconsideration in criminal cases,
courts have relied on the standards governing Rule 59(e) and
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Feathers, 2017 WL 783947, at *2. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e), governing motions to alter or amend
judgment, is inapplicable here. The Court therefore evaluates
Shields' motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 60(b), a court may grant relief “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 before the
court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6)
any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
motion does not fit within any of the first five categories
of relief under Rule 60(b). The Court thus considers whether
he has established grounds for relief under the sixth
category. “Rule 60(b)(6), which is the catchall
provision of Rule 60 that allows a court to grant
reconsideration in an effort to prevent manifest injustice,
can only be utilized in extraordinary circumstances.”
Perez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 291 F.R.D.
425, 430 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Shields has not shown that reconsideration
is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice, or that this
case involves extraordinary circumstances. He simply disputes
the Court's determinations that he has not demonstrated a
high probability of success or special circumstances
warranting release on bail under McCandless. Def.
Motion for Recon., ECF 472. Shields attempts to persuade the
Court to take a different view by providing additional
argument regarding the substance of his claims for relief
under § 2255 and additional medical records documenting
his daughter's epilepsy, injuries, and medical
procedures. He also lists a number of circumstances in his
life that he views as unfair, including the sentencing
disparity between himself and his co-defendants, the prison
Warden's refusal to grant him compassionate leave, and
the difficulties he is encountering in litigating his §
2255 Motion from prison. Id. He concludes his motion
for reconsideration by asserting that granting his request
for bail “will clearly remedy the extreme prejudice and
negative bias against Petitioner and create a level playing
field for the disposition of the 2255 Motion.”
Id. at 3.
motion for reconsideration clearly expresses his deep concern
for his daughter and his frustration at other circumstances
in his life. However, he has not demonstrated the existence
of extraordinary circumstances or the potential for manifest
injustice necessary to warrant relief under Rule 60(b).
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
is reminded that all briefs filed in this Court must be
prepared in 12-point type and double ...