Powell v. Rios
ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 8 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/1/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
(HC) Powell v. Rios
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 HECTOR RIOS, Warden 13 Respondent. 14 15 On September 2, 2010, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 2241 was dismissed because it did not allege grounds that would entitled Petitioner to 17 18 On September 16, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's 19 20 any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) "is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 21 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . ." exist. 22 Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation 23 omitted). The moving party "must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control 24 . . . ." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In seeking reconsideration of an order, 25 26 27 28
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate J u d g e . Local Rule 305(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TONY EDWARD POWELL, Petitioner, v.
1:10-cv-01272-DLB (HC) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. 8]
relief and judgment was entered.1
September 2, 2010 order.2 Rule 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for
On September 20, 2010, a duplicate copy of the same motion was filed in this Court.
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
Local Rule 230(j)(3) requires Plaintiff to show "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." "A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law," Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted, and "[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and recapitulation . . . " of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision," U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). The basis for Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is his disagreement with the Court's dismissal decision and the Court's application of the law to his petition. Petitioner has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief, and has therefore not met his burden as the party moving for reconsideration. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880. Petitioner's disagreement is not sufficient grounds for relief from the order. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d at 1131. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a
October 1, 2010
/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?