Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 88

ORDER that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 85 ) and Motion for Stay and Abeyance (ECF No. 84 ) are denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/19/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 MATHEW LEE WILLIAMS, 7 Petitioner, v. 8 9 Case No. 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-CBC ORDER DENYING POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 84, 85) RENEE BAKER, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 12 In this action, on June 24, 2019, the Court denied Mathew Lee Williams’s amended 13 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied Williams a certificate of appealability (ECF 14 No. 81), and judgment was entered accordingly (ECF No. 82). 15 On July 3, 2019, Williams filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 85) and a 16 motion for stay and abeyance (ECF No. 84). Respondents filed an opposition to the 17 motion for reconsideration on July 8, 2019 (ECF No. 86), and Williams replied on July 17, 18 2019 (ECF No. 87). 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a 20 final judgment if there is a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 21 neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or 22 discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 23 Williams does not make a showing warranting relief under Rule 60(b). That motion will be 24 denied. 25 The denial of the motion for reconsideration renders moot the motion for stay and 26 abeyance. And, at any rate, the Court has examined the motion for stay and abeyance 27 and determines that it is without merit. 28 /// 1 2 3 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 85) and Motion for Stay and Abeyance (ECF No. 84) are denied. DATED THIS 19th day of July 2019. 4 5 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?