Barron v. Paramo

Filing 35

ORDER Denying 34 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/10/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
I. <s 1 FILED 2 17 JAN ro AH 9:38 3 4 mm 5 k immrn 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS FRANCISCO BARRON, Case No.: 3:14-cv-01968-BEN-DHB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE 13 v. 14 DANIEL PARAMO, Defendant. 15 16 17 Petitioner Luis Francisco Barron (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 18 brought this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”), 19 challenging his state court conviction for first degree murder. (Docket No. 1.) On 20 October 5, 2015, Honorable Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick issued a thoughtful and 21 thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the Petition be denied 22 it its entirety. (Docket No. 23.) On January 12,2016, this Court adopted the Report and 23 denied the Petition in its entirety. (Docket No. 25.) 24 III 25 III 26 III 27 III 28 III l 3:14-cv-01968-BEN-DHB 1 2 ,I Petitioner now seeks a Motion to Vacate the Court's January 12, 2016, Order. 1 For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion. 3 Petitioner asks this Court to vacate its previous order under Rule 60(b)( 1) of the 4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 34 .) Under Rule 60(b)( 1), a district court 5 may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for "mistake, 6 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). "These grounds 7 generally require a showing that events subsequent to the entry of the judgment make its 8 enforcement unfair or inappropriate, or that the party was deprived of a fair opportunity 9 to appear and be heard in connection with the underlying dispute." In re Wylie, 349 B.R. 10 204,209 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006). None of these grounds applies here; Petitioner presents 11 no newly discovered evidence to justify the vacating of the Court's order. In short, 12 Petitioner merely seeks for this Court to change its mind in Petitioner's favor. 13 Petitioner's Motion to Vacate (Docket No. 34 ) is therefore DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: January£. , 2017 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In his Motion, Petitioner states a request for the Court to "vacate the Court's previous order to close this case and dismiss the proceeding." (Docket No. 34.) The Court assumes Petitioner is referring to its January 12,2016, Order (Docket No. 25), denying the Petition in its entirety, resulting in dismissal of his case. I 2 3: 14-cv-O I 968-BEN-DHB

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?