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)

Download PDF
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

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?