Queen v. Matervousian

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Motion for relief from judgment signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/11/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS J. QUEEN,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-01441-DAD-MJS

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENT

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
(Doc. No. 15)
Respondent.

16
17

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

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 17, 2017, the petition was dismissed pursuant to the abuse

19

of the writ doctrine and this case was closed. Now pending before the court is petitioner’s motion

20

for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2). (Doc. No. 15.) The cited

21

rule is inapplicable and the court will therefore construe the filing as a motion for relief from

22

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b).

23

Among other provisions, Rule 60 allows the court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to

24

“relieve a party or . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” for “mistake, inadvertence,

25

surprise, or excusable neglect” and for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26

60(b)(1), (b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6)’s catch-all provision is to be “used sparingly as an equitable

27

remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances

28

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.”
1

1

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &

2

Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). Generally, relief under Rule 60 will be available

3

in three instances: “1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law, 2) new

4

evidence has come to light, or 3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest

5

injustice.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001).

6

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate.

7

Cassidy v. Tenorio, 856 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1988).

8
9

Here, petitioner has not met his burden. Petitioner essentially seeks to reargue the same
issues he has previously raised, claiming that the court has misinterpreted his habeas claim. (Doc.

10

No. 15 (asserting he is “actually innocent of robbing a Provident Bank of Maryland” because he

11

in fact robbed a bank with the name “Provident Savings Bank”).) It has not. Petitioner presents

12

no intervening change of law or new evidence not previously before the court, and has not shown

13

clear error or manifest injustice.

14

Accordingly petitioner’s motion for new trial (Doc. No. 15), which the court construes as

15

a motion for relief from judgment, is denied.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

August 11, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2