Lara v. Adams

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 21 Motion for Relief from Judgment signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 8/03/2009. (Flores, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CAYETANO T. LARA,

) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)

1:08-CV-00706 OWW GSA HC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [Doc. #21]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 22, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for untimeliness be granted. On November 20, 2008, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, granted Respondent's motion to dismiss, dismissed the case, and directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date. On July 20, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U . S . D i s t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

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 fails to meet this standard. Petitioner complains that he was not able to traverse Respondent's August 1, 2008 motion because he is illiterate, has no knowledge of the legal system, lacks education, and relies on other inmates for assistance. Contrary to his assertion, Petitioner did in fact file an opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss on August 25, 2008, wherein he presented these same arguments. The Court considered his arguments but granted Respondent's motion to dismiss. Therefore, Petitioner's arguments have already been addressed, and his motion presents no basis for relief. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2009 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2