Jones v. The People of the State of California , Fresno Superior Court, District Attorney

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/29/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
CHARLES JONES,
12
Petitioner,
13
14

v.

15
FRESNO SUPERIOR COURT, et al,
16
Respondent.
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-01938 MJS HC
O RDE R DE NYING
RECONSIDERATION

MO T I O N

FO R

(Doc. 8)

18
19
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
21
On March 7, 2013, the undersigned dismissed the petition as successive under 28
22
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). On March 7, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant
23
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b).
24
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
25
26

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:

27
28

-1-

(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),
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.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or identify any evidence that has not

8

already been considered by this Court. Petitioner does not address the Court's finding that his

9

petition was successive. Instead he again presents claims that he is entitled to evidence under

10

California Penal Code § 1054.9. Even if California law allowed Petitioner to obtain new

11

evidence, a Federal Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus would not be the appropriate vehicle

12

to obtain such evidence. Petitioner's arguments present no basis for relief from the finding that

13

his claim was successive or from the order dismissing it.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:
92b0h

March 29, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-