Hoffman v. Copenhaver

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Petitioner's Second Motion for Reconsideration signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/29/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00122-GSA-HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 19)

Petitioner,
v.
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

18 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 11, 2015, the undersigned dismissed the petition. (ECF No. 7).
19 On May 18, 2015, the Court granted the motion to withdraw as attorney. (ECF No. 16). On
20 May 18, 2015, Petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing
21 the case.

(ECF No. 17).

22 reconsideration.

On June 17, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for

(ECF No. 18).

On July 13, 2015, Petitioner filed a second motion for

23 reconsideration. (ECF No. 19).
24

The Court will review Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b).

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

(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.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Petitioner’s arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. As to subsection

8 (b)(1), a court may reconsider its judgment when there has been surprise, excusable neglect,
9 inadvertence, or mistake, including an error of law. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 691
10 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982). For a party to be entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6), he must
11 show “ ‘extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez v.
12 Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v.
13 United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950)). The rule “is to be used
14 sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where
15 extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
16 erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations
17 omitted).
18

Petitioner argues that new United States Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States,

19 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), stands for the proposition that challenges to statutory law are always
20 retroactive. (ECF No. 19 at 1). However, Johnson’s reasoning is limited in application to the
21 validity of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) residual clause. See Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at
22 2563. The Supreme Court held that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of
23 the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Our
24 contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Today’s decision does not call into question
25 application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of
26 a violent felony.” Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563.
27

It appears that Petitioner’s arguments related to Johnson are to support his claims

28 concerning Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), and the

2

1 categorical approach to the residual clause of the ACCA.

In Petitioner’s first motion for

2 reconsideration, he raised an argument related to Descamps. As the Court previously noted,
3 Petitioner did not raise any arguments related to Descamps in his petition. If Petitioner wishes to
4 raise claims concerning Descamps, he must do so in a new petition, but the Court expresses no
5 opinion as to the merits of such a petition. Thus, Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration
6 must be denied.
7
ORDER

8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s second motion for

10 reconsideration (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 29, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3