Scott vs Neven

Filing 49

ORDER Denying 45 Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 47 Petitioner's Motion to Extend Time is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/21/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Scott vs Neven

Doc. 49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, by 16 Steven Scott, a Nevada prisoner. The action comes before the court on petitioner's motion for relief 17 from judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) (docket #45). 18 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a 19 final judgment or order for the following reasons: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Such motions are generally left to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin STEVEN L. SCOTT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) ____________________________________) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2:06-cv-1514-JCM-LRL ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In order to succeed on a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). In the instant motion, petitioner argues that the court failed to rule on certain grounds raised in his federal habeas petition and failed to consider certain facts or arguments presented by petitioner in denying relief. Respondents oppose the motion pointing to the sections of the court's order addressing the various claim identified by petitioner. In his reply, petitioner contends that the respondents opposition contains lies and if believed, the court must be incompetent or compromised. Petitioner's arguments for reversal of this court's previous decision are not persuasive. The motion for relief from the judgment shall be denied. In its forty-two page Order of September 23, 2009, the court went to significant lengths to consider and address each claim raised in the petition. Petitioner's arguments contained in the instant motion attempts to re-litigate the petition, particularly the claims raised in grounds 1(5), grounds 2(D)(1), 2(D)(3) and 2(C)(1). However, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to the relief requested, and he presents no new evidence to warrant overturning the judgment as entered. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (docket #45) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for time (docket #47) is denied as moot. Dated this 21st day of December, 2010.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26

2