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)

Download PDF
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

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?