Wade Knight v. Copenhaven

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 21 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 22 Motion for Re-Hearing, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/19/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

WADE KNIGHT,
Petitioner,
v.
PAUL COPENHAVEN,
Respondent.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00888-AWI-JLT
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 21)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RE-HEARING (Doc. 22)

16
17
18

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

19

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20

The instant petition was filed on June 11, 2014. (Doc. 1). On September 30, 2014, the

21

Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations to dismiss for lack of habeas jurisdiction,

22

concluding that Petitioner must challenge his prior federal conviction in the trial court. (Doc. 14). On

23

February 2, 2015, the district court judge adopted those Findings and Recommendations, entered

24

judgment against Petitioner, and ordered the file closed. (Doc. 19; 20). On March 4, 2015, Petitioner

25

filed the instant motion for reconsideration (Doc. 21), and on March 12, 2015, Petitioner filed a

26

motion styled as a petition for re-hearing. (Doc. 22). Both motions re-argue the appropriateness of

27

challenging Petitioner’s federal conviction in this habeas court rather than before the sentencing court.

28
1

1
2

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

3

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

4

of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3)

5

fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6)

6

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A

7

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year

8

after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

9

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

10

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown

11

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are

12

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

13

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party

14

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

15

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.

16

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).

17

Here, Petitioner failed to the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration: He has not

18

shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” nor has he shown the existence of either

19

newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the judgment is either void or satisfied;

20

and, finally, Petitioner has not presented any other reasons justifying relief from judgment. Moreover,

21

pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, Petitioner has not shown “new or different facts or circumstances

22

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

23

exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). (Emphasis supplied).

24

Indeed, in his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner

25

argued, as he does in the instant motions, that he qualifies for the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. sec.

26

2255 and that he has put forth a cognizable claim of actual innocence. (Docs. 21; 22). In the order

27

adopting the Findings and Recommendations, the Court expressly considered those points and rejected

28

them. (Doc. 19). Petitioner does not present any new evidence or legal arguments, but merely re2

1

argues the legal issues already considered and rejected by this Court. In sum, Petitioner has provided

2

no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the requirements of Rule 60(b), and therefore his

3

motion for reconsideration and motion for re-hearing must be denied.
ORDER

4
5

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

6

1.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 21), is DENIED.

7

2.

Petitioner’s motion for re-hearing (Doc. 22), is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3