Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03675/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03675-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Petioner’s motion for an extension of time in which to file said motion is GRANTED.

1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN T. ESPRITT,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. _______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-3675 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS

FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME;

DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

(Docket Nos. 32, 33, 35 and 37)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was denied on its merits. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for “rehearing,” which the Court construes as a motion

for reconsideration.1

 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the

following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the

court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction

of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J

v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that

the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court's order or

belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See

Case 3:03-cv-03675-MMC Document 38 Filed 03/16/06 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

Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time in which to file his notice of appeal and

request for certificate of appealability is GRANTED. 

2

Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Petitioner does not indicate the provision of Rule 60(b) under which reconsideration is

warranted. Petitioner alleges no new evidence that could not have been discovered with due

diligence, no mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, no fraud by the adverse

party, and no voiding of the judgment. Petitioner has not provided any other reason

justifying relief. Rather, petitioner simply reiterates arguments made in the petition and

traverse, and attacks the Court’s analysis of those arguments. Motions for reconsideration

are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See

id. Petitioner has not set forth a valid basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

Petitioner has filed a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). Petitioner has not shown “that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). Accordingly, the

request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.2

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner also may seek a certificate of

appealability. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

This order terminates Docket Nos. 32, 33, 35 and 37.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 16, 2006 ____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:03-cv-03675-MMC Document 38 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2