Dews v. Warden of Corcoran State Prison
ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration 13 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/30/14. (Hellings, J)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:14-cv-01113 LJO MJS (HC)
CLARENCE LEON DEWS,
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On September 15, 2014, the undersigned dismissed the petition as successive
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). On September 26, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b).
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
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
(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.
Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already
been considered by this Court. The Court finds that its prior ruling that the petition was
successive and required to be dismissed was correct. To the extent Petitioner seeks
permission to file a successive petition, he should file a request directly with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
September 30, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?