Eleson v. Lizarraga, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/6/14 denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC RICHARD ELESON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

No. 2:13-cv-2363-EFB P

ORDER

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 7, 2014, the undersigned dismissed this action

19

without prejudice to filing a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and judgment was

20

duly entered. ECF Nos. 4, 5. Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.

21

ECF No. 6.

22

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered

23

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

24

an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

25

(9th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as

26

follows:

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,
1

1
2
3
4

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.

5
6

Petitioner has not shown that circumstances exist to justify the requested relief.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No.

8

6) is denied.

9

DATED: March 6, 2014.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2