Jackson et al v. Warden

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/25/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

VANCE JACKSON,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:14-cv-01057-LJO-GSA-HC

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
(ECF No. 19)
CORCORAN STATE PRISON WARDEN,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19

On November 21, 2014, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

20 recommendation, and the petition was dismissed.
21

On November 24, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration, which the

22 court will consider a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
23 Procedure § 60(b).
24

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

25

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:

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);
1

4

(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.

5

Petitioner’s arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. Petitioner asks the

1
2
3

6 Court to continue processing his petition for writ of habeas corpus or forward it to the Monterey
7 County Superior Court. The petition challenges the conditions of confinement, not the fact or
8 duration of that confinement, and therefore, is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Should
9 Petitioner wish to pursue the claims he raised in the petition, Petitioner must do so by way of a
10 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, this Court will not forward the
11 petition to the Monterey County Superior Court.
12

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

November 25, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2