Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01705-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS CHAN LAI,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,

Respondent.

1:14-cv-01705 LJO MJS HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 19)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On February 4, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition. On March 26, 2015, 

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 19.) Rule 60(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

Case 1:14-cv-01705-LJO-MJS Document 21 Filed 06/19/15 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

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already 

been considered by this Court. In this case, Petitioner asserts that recent case law 

should be applied retroactively, thereby making his remedy under Section 2255 

inadequate or ineffective. Petitioner presented similar arguments in his Petition, which 

the Court, upon review, found insufficient to warrant relief. His contentions in his motion 

for reconsideration fare no better. Petitioner has not shown that the Court's 

determination that Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 186 L. Ed. 2d 438 

(2013), should not be applied retroactively is incorrect. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 19) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01705-LJO-MJS Document 21 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2