Wiggins v. Yates

Filing 12

ORDER Denying 11 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/27/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

RICKEY WIGGINS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
JAMES A. YATES, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
________________________________)

1:11-cv-00777 AWI MJS HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 11)

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. § 2254. The instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed

20

on May 13, 2011. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) In his petition, Petitioner challenges a September 10,

21

2008 finding of the Unit Classification Committee (“UCC”) which changed his custody level

22

from ‘Medium A’ to ‘Close B.’ (Pet. at 7-8, ECF No. 1.) A review of the Court’s docket and files

23

shows Petitioner has previously sought federal habeas relief with respect to this finding of the

24

UCC. In case number 1:10-cv-02093-OWW-JLT, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

25

Recommendations to dismiss the petition for habeas corpus for failure to state a cognizable

26

claim that affected the fact or duration of his confinement. The court dismissed the prior

27

petition on September 7, 2011.

28

In light of the earlier petition, the Court dismissed the present petition as a second or

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

-1-

1

successive petition without leave of the Court of Appeals file the petition. See Greenawalt v.

2

Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1997).

3

On February 27, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Mot., ECF

4

No. 11.) Petitioner asserts that the petition should be reconsidered in light of his difficulty

5

reading, lack of legal knowledge, and the fact that his facility has been on lock-down.

6

II.

DISCUSSION

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment."

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in

13

any event "not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or

14

taken." Id.

15

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

16

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

17

were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Motions

18

to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking,

19

825 F.2d 437, 441, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 300 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456,

20

460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly

21

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare

22

Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd

23

in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

24

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

25

reconsideration. He has not shown "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,"

26

provided newly discovered evidence, shown the judgment to be either void or satisfied, or

27

provide any other reasons justifying relief from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court's

28

Local Rules, Petitioner has not provided "new or different facts or circumstances claimed to

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

-2-

1

exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds

2

exist for the motion." Local Rule 230(j).

3

Petitioner does not address that the present motion is a second or successive petition.

4

Even if additional information provided in the motion for reconsideration is true, Petitioner is

5

not entitled for relief in the present petition. Petitioner's reading difficulties, lack of legal

6

knowledge, and restrictions from the lock-down of his facility, do not change the fact that the

7

Court lacks jurisdiction to review a second or successive petition. Because the Motion for

8

Reconsideration provides no new evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the

9

requirements of Rule 60(b), it must be denied.

10
11

III.

ORDER
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 11.) is

12

DENIED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:
0m8i78

April 27, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

-3-