Chairez v. Adams

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING 26 PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 2, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2010)

Chairez v. Adams

Doc. 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARTURO CHAIREZ, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) DARREL ADAMS, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________ ) No. C 07-5767 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Docket No. 26)

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

On November 14, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 9, 2009, the Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244, and judgment was entered that same date. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. The Court, by order filed April 13, 2009, denied the motion because petitioner did not allege any grounds justifying relief under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 25.) Petitioner has now filed a motion for relief from judgment, in which motion he sets out the lengthy procedural history of the instant action and the contents of the Court's rulings herein; petitioner does not, however, allege grounds justifying his entitlement to relief under

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Rule 60(b).1 In particular, petitioner argues the Court should not have granted respondent's motion to dismiss; in so doing, he asserts the same arguments put forth in his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss, which arguments the Court found did not entitle petitioner to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. (Docket No. 22 at 3-6.) Additionally, petitioner raised the same arguments in his prior motion for reconsideration, which motion the Court denied. Petitioner alleges no other ground for relief under Rule 60(b), nor is such apparent from the motion. Specifically, petitioner's motion contains no allegation as to newlydiscovered evidence, nor does it set forth any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud by the adverse party, voiding of the judgment, or any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, the motion for relief from judgment is hereby DENIED. The Court will not consider any further motions for reconsideration or relief from judgment based on the same arguments raised in the instant motion. This order terminates Docket No. 26. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 2, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Rule 59(e) is not applicable because the time for filing a motion for reconsideration under that Rule has long passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing motion must be filed 28 no more than ten days following entry of judgment).
1

2