Brown v. Miller

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING 50 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

Case No. 1:12-cv-01787 AWI MJS (HC)
KAREEM BROWN,

12
13

ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner,

MOTION

FOR

[Doc. 50]

v.

14
15
16

AMY MILLER, Warden,
Respondent.

17
18
19

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

20

On March 25, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition on the merits. On

21

October 24, 2016, Petitioner filed this motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal

22

Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). (ECF No. 50.)

23

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

24

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:

25
26
27
28

(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);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
1

3

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.

4

Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or items of evidence not already

5

considered by this Court. He presents arguments that were previously raised and

6

adjudicated in his petition, including that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on a

7

provocation defense and that the prosecution failed to prove that he acted with malice

8

aforethought. The Court’s prior ruling addressed the same claims presented in this

9

motion for reconsideration. Petitioner has presented no grounds upon which the Court

10

might determine that its prior decision was erroneous. Accordingly, Petitioner is not

11

entitled to post-judgment relief.

1
2

12

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2