Lai v. Copenhaver

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/19/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

1:14-cv-01705 LJO MJS HC
DENNIS CHAN LAI,

12
13

ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner,

MOTION

FOR

(Doc. 19)

v.

14
15
16

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,
Respondent.

17
18
19

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

20

On February 4, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition. On March 26, 2015,

21

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 19.) Rule 60(b) of the Federal

22

Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

23
24
25
26
27
28

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:
(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;
1

2

(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.

3

Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already

4

been considered by this Court. In this case, Petitioner asserts that recent case law

5

should be applied retroactively, thereby making his remedy under Section 2255

6

inadequate or ineffective. Petitioner presented similar arguments in his Petition, which

7

the Court, upon review, found insufficient to warrant relief. His contentions in his motion

8

for reconsideration fare no better. Petitioner has not shown that the Court's

9

determination that Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 186 L. Ed. 2d 438

1

10
11

(2013), should not be applied retroactively is incorrect.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

12
13
14
15
16

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 19) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

June 19, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2