Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06621/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06621-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS DARNELL DIXON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PAUL M. SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:04-CV-6621 REC LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 11, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered. On February 23, 2005, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and directed that

judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On March 8, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

Case 1:04-cv-06621-REC-LJO Document 9 Filed 02/10/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence

that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner’s contention that the miscitation of

Apprendi v. New Jersey in the Order adopting the findings and recommendation warrants

reconsideration is without merit. Apprendi, which was decided in June 2000, is not retroactive on

collateral review. Petitioner’s arguments present no basis for relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06621-REC-LJO Document 9 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2