Broussard v. Adams

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/11/2009. (Lundstrom, T)

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

CURLEY JOHN BROUSSARD, JR.,

) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) LEE ANN CHRONES, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________)

1:08-CV-01926 GSA HC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. #16]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 9, 2009, Petitioner returned the consent/decline form indicating consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. On January 9, 2009, Petitioner filed a first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, on January 14, 2009, on the Court's own motion, the petition was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judgment was entered on the same date. On February 2, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration 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 judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

1

1 2 3 4 5 6

(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. As discussed in the order dismissing the petition,

7 Petitioner's claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. His claims concern conditions of his 8 confinement and must therefore be presented in a civil rights action. Petitioner's arguments for 9 reconsideration present no basis for relief. 10 Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 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

Dated: 6i0kij

February 11, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2