Thomas v. Hartley
Filing
34
ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 33 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DENNIS THOMAS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
JAMES HARTLEY, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
________________________________)
1:09-cv-02252 LJO MJS HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 33)
16
17
I.
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. ยง 2254 filed on October 19, 2009. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his petition,
20
Petitioner contends, based on various constitutional grounds, that regulations and actions by
21
the warden have improperly increased the term of his incarceration. On June 14, 2010, the
22
Court ordered Respondent to file a response. (Order, ECF No. 15.) On August 13, 2010,
23
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 18.) On
24
December 7, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a recommendation that the
25
petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. (Findings and Recommendation,
26
ECF No. 21.) On February 3, 2010, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation, but
27
instead of denying the petition, granted Petitioner leave to amend the petition to more clearly
28
state his claims. (Order, ECF 23.)
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-1-
1
Petitioner filed a first amended petition on February 3, 2011. (First Am. Pet., ECF No.
2
24.) On November 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge again issued findings and a recommendation
3
to dismiss the petition. (Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 27.) On December 9, 2011,
4
the Court adopted the findings and recommendation and dismissed the petition. (Order, ECF
5
No. 29.)
6
On December 13, 2011, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendation,
7
and on December 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate the order adopting the findings
8
and recommendation. (Obj. and Mot. To Vacate, ECF Nos. 31, 33.) The Court has construed
9
Petitioner's filings as a motion for reconsideration requesting that the Court reconsider its
10
dismissal of the petition, reopen the matter, and grant petitioner relief. (Mot. to Vacate at 3.)
11
II.
DISCUSSION
12
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the
13
district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment
14
on grounds of: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
15
evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
16
been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."
17
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in
18
any event "not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or
19
taken." Id.
20
Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party
21
to show the "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or
22
were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Motions
23
to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking,
24
825 F.2d 437, 441, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 300 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456,
25
460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly
26
convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare
27
Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd
28
in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-2-
1
Here, Petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for granting a motion for
2
reconsideration. He has not shown "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,"
3
provided newly discovered evidence, shown the judgment to be either void or satisfied, or
4
provide any other reasons justifying relief from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court's
5
Local Rules, Petitioner has not provided "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to
6
exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds
7
exist for the motion." Local Rule 230(j).
8
Instead, the arguments raised in the opposition to the findings and recommendation
9
and the instant motion for reconsideration repeat the arguments presented the petition.
10
Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Board of Parole Hearings lacks authority and improperly
11
lengthened the term of his sentence by not finding him suitable for parole. The court has
12
already addressed these claims in its decision. Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate
13
sentence, and while eligible, is not guaranteed release on parole. Accordingly, being found
14
unsuitable for parole affects how long Petitioner will be incarcerated, but does not change the
15
term of his sentence which includes an upper term of life in prison. Further, to the extent that
16
Petitioner claims that the Board of Parole Hearings relied on impermissible evidence, this
17
Court lacks authority to review claims of substantive due process relating to the decision to
18
deny parole. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861-62, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011).
Because the Motion for Reconsideration provides no new evidence or circumstances
19
20
that would satisfy the requirements of Rule 60(b), it must be denied.
21
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 33.) is
22
23
ORDER
DENIED.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
b9ed48
January 4, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?