Lionel Tate Sr. v. James D. Hartley

Filing 23

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. 22 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/21/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

LIONEL TATE, SR.,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

1:09-cv-02144-LJO-JLT HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 22)

17
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on
20
December 10, 2009. (Doc. 1). In his petition, Petitioner contends that his inability to earn half-time
21
credits based on a sentence enhancement for a prior conviction violates the plea agreement in that
22
prior conviction. On April 29, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Doc. 8). On
23
July 29, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition because Petitioner’s claims sound
24
only in state law. (Doc. 15). On August 11, 2010, Petitioner filed his opposition to the motion to
25
dismiss. (Doc. 16). On October 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and
26
Recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal habeas
27
claim. (Doc. 18). On November 1, 2010, Petitioner filed his objections to the Findings and
28
Recommendations. (Doc. 19). On November 19, 2010, the District Judge adopted the Findings and
1

1

Recommendations, entered judgment against Petitioner, and order the Clerk of the Court to close the

2

file. (Doc. 20). On December 1, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration,

3

contending that he had established in his petition and opposition to the motion to dismiss that his

4

claim was based upon federal law. (Doc. 22).

5

DISCUSSION

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

. . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . .

10

. or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

11

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one

12

year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

13

Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to

14

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

15

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider

16

are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

17

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party

18

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

19

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.

20

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

21

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for granting a motion for

22

reconsideration: He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has

23

certainly not shown either newly discovered evidence or fraud; the judgment has not been shown to

24

be either void or satisfied; and Petitioner has not presented any other reasons justifying relief from

25

judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, Petitioner has not “new or different facts

26

or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

27

what other grounds exist for the motion.”

28

Local Rule 230(j).

Indeed, the arguments raised in the instant motion for reconsideration are mere repetitions of
2

1

the arguments Petitioner has already raised in his opposition to the motion to dismiss and his

2

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. This Court had already read,

3

considered, and rejected those very arguments prior to adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

4

Recommendations. Because the motion for reconsideration provides no new evidence or

5

circumstances that would satisfy the requirements of Rule 60(b), it must therefore be denied.

6

ORDER

7
8

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.
22), is DENIED.

9
10
11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
b9ed48

April 21, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3