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)

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