Patterson v. Sherman

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/24/2016 denying Motion for Reconsideration re 32 , 34 , 35 . (Lundstrom, T)

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

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

Case No. 1:15-cv-00053 LJO MJS (HC)
VESTER L. PATTERSON,

13
14

ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner,

MOTION

FOR

[Docs. 32, 34-35]

v.

15
16
17

STU SHERMAN, Warden,
Respondent.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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 16, 2015, the undersigned dismissed the petition as untimely
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On November 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). (ECF No. 32.) On
February 25, 2016, Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. (ECF No.
34.) On March 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision on the motion for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 35.)
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

28
1

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
2

(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.

3
4
5
6
7
8

Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already
9
been considered by this Court. The Court finds that its prior ruling that the petition was
10
untimely and had to be dismissed was correct. Petitioner has not argued that his petition
11
was timely filed or that he is excused from timely filing based on statutory or equitable
12
tolling. As Petitioner has not presented any arguments as to why the finding of the Court
13
regarding the timeliness of the Petition was incorrect, he is not entitled to post-judgment
14
relief.
15
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and related motions are
16
DENIED. (Docs. 32, 34-35.)
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 24, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2