Rouser v. Unknown

Filing 17

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/11/2020 DENYING 16 petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from judgment. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM ROUSER,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1358-JAM-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

UNKNOWN,
Respondent.

16
17

On December 19, 2018, this habeas action was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of

18

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 14. Judgment was duly entered.

19

ECF No. 15. On April 15, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

20

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 16.

21

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment where one of more of the

22

following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

23

discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within

24

twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an

25

opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other

26

reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a

27

“reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the

28

judgment of order or the date of the proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P 60(c)(1).
1

1

Because petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion more than a year after the entry of

2

judgment, he must demonstrate he is entitled to relief for reasons (4), (5), and/or (6). Petitioner,

3

however, has not shown he is entitled to relief from judgment for any of the reasons enumerated

4

in Rule 60(b). Petitioner argues that the court erred in dismissing his petition, which challenged

5

the results of a prison rules violation report, because on April 2, 2020, the Board of Parole

6

Hearings relied upon that disciplinary report to deny him parole for ten years. ECF No. 16.

7

Even so, petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary action does not fall within the “core of habeas

8

corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). As stated in the findings and

9

recommendations underlying the order of dismissal (ECF No. 12), the petition does not present a

10

basis for habeas jurisdiction because even if the disciplinary report were expunged from

11

petitioner’s record, it would not necessarily result in petitioner’s speedier release. See id.

12

(observing that a rules violation is just one of many factors a parole board may consider in

13

determining a prisoner’s suitability for parole).

14
15

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from
judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.

16
17
18
19

DATED: May 11, 2020
/s/ John A. Mendez____________

_____

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2