Flenory v. Hartly

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 16 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 9/23/2010. (Bradley, A)

(HC) Flenory v. Hartly

Doc. 17

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 is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CRAIG L. FLENORY,

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

1:10-CV-00539 SMS 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. He has consented to have a magistrate judge conduct any and all proceeding, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On August 6, 2010, the undersigned issued an order granting Respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition with prejudice for violating the statute of limitations. Judgment was entered the same date. On September 15, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. 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) 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); 1
Dockets.Justia.com

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 is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

(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 satisfy this standard. His arguments present no basis for relief. His petition violates the statute of limitations and was properly dismissed. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 September 23, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2