Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01823/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01823-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD BUSHELMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL ADLER, Warden, et.al.,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01823 AWI SMS (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Docs. 19, 20]

On March 7, 2008, the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 was dismissed and judgment was entered that same date. (Court Docs. 13, 14.) 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motions reconsideration, filed on May 12

and May 16, 2008. (Court Docs. 19, 20.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment

on the grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgement is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied . . . ; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of

the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a

reasonable time, in any event, “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding

was entered or taken.” Id.

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin

Case 1:07-cv-01823-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9 Cir. 1983) th

(en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce

the court to reverse its prior decision. See e.g., 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

(9 Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[c]lause

th

60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding clauses.’” LaFarge

Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting Corex

Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981). Accordingly, “the clause is reserved for th

‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does notset forth any arguments or evidence

that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner’s arguments present no basis for

relief. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01823-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 06/24/08 Page 2 of 2