Hunt v. Felker

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING 18 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/10/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANUEL LEE HUNT,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:07-cv-1281-DAD-JLT (HC)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

T. FELKER,
(Doc. No. 18)
Respondent.

16
17
18
19

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On March 19, 2008, the court dismissed the petition as barred by the applicable statute of

20

limitations. (Doc. No. 7.) Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On

21

February 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 16.)

22

Nearly nine years later, on November 14, 2017, petitioner filed the instant motion seeking

23

reconsideration of the court’s March 19, 2008 decision. (Doc. No. 18.)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

25

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

26

on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

27

evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

28

been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion
1

1

under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3), “no

2

more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 60(c).

4

Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

5

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro,

6

531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing

7

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1)–(5)). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and

8

circumstances beyond his control.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further,

9

Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that in moving for reconsideration of an order

10

denying or granting a prior motion, a party must show “what new or different facts or

11

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” previously, “what

12

other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown” at the

13

time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered.

14

Here, petitioner fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration.

15

Petitioner has not shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; he has not shown

16

the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the

17

judgment is either void or satisfied; and he has not presented any other reasons justifying relief

18

from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Local Rules of this court, petitioner has not shown

19

“new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown

20

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). The

21

arguments he presents in his motion for reconsideration are not new, novel, or based on new

22

developments; to the contrary, his arguments are the same as those already presented by him

23

which were previously considered and rejected by the court.

24

As noted, petitioner brings this motion for reconsideration nine years after entry of final

25

judgment. His only excuse for his delay in doing so is that he was unaware he could file a motion

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). (Doc. No. 18 at 26.) Petitioner’s explanation is inadequate

2

to justify a delay of nearly a decade.

3
4
5

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 18) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3