Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01849/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01849-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN CIOTTA,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01849-AWI-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(ECF No. 42)

Petitioner is a state prisoner who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On August 2, 2016, the Court dismissed the petition and entered judgment. (ECF 

Nos. 31, 32). On September 5, 2016,1Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration of 

the Court’s order dismissing the case. (ECF No. 42).

The Court will review Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which 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; 

(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.

 

1

Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s legal document is filed “at the time . . . [it is] delivered . . . 

to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.” Hernandez v. Spearman, 764 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 

2014) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988)). Here, Petitioner declares that the motion was delivered to prison authorities for mailing on September 5, 

2016. (ECF No. 42 at 21).

Case 1:15-cv-01849-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 3
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 contends that the Court erred in finding that it lacked habeas jurisdiction and in 

denying Petitioner leave to amend. (ECF No. 42 at 5–7). The Court may grant relief under Rule 

60(b)(1) for judicial error pursuant to a motion filed “within a reasonable time not exceeding the 

time for appeal.” Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 368 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir. 1966). See 

also Peterson v. Blauer, 471 F. App’x 700 (9th Cir. 2012). The instant motion for reconsideration 

was filed after the time for appeal expired.2 Regardless, the Court finds no basis to reconsider its 

decision on the merits of Petitioner’s arguments. Even if Petitioner’s sentence allowed for the 

possibility of parole, which it does not, expungement of the challenged disciplinary violation 

would not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release because “the presence of a 

disciplinary infraction does not compel the denial or parole, nor does an absence an infraction 

compel the grant of parole.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). 

Thus, Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in habeas. Additionally, Petitioner’s motions to amend 

were filed beyond the time period prescribed by Rule 15(a)(1) for amendments as a matter of 

course, and thus, Petitioner was required to obtain the Court’s leave to amend the petition. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 15(a). As the petition was untimely and not cognizable in habeas, amendment was 

futile.

Petitioner also moves for reconsideration of dismissal based on manifest injustice. (ECF 

No. 42 at 1). For a party to be entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6), he must show 

“‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment,” and “[s]uch 

circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535

(2005) (citations omitted). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented 

a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. 

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Petitioner has not demonstrated 

that such extraordinary circumstances exist here, and the Court finds relief is not warranted 

under Rule 60(b)(6).

 

2 The time for appeal expired on September 1, 2016, thirty days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

The instant motion for reconsideration was filed on September 5, 2016. 

Case 1:15-cv-01849-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court’s denial of relief, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. In United States v. Winkles, the 

Ninth Circuit held that a certificate of appealability “is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 

60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of the denial of a section 2255 motion.” 795 

F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2015). If a court denies a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 proceeding, a 

certificate of appealability should only issue if “(1) jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1143. “Given that section 2255 ‘was 

intended to mirror § 2254 in operative effect,’ and that the language used in sections 

2253(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) is functionally identical,” id. at 1141 (citations omitted), the Court 

will apply the standard set forth in Winkles to determine whether a certificate of appealability 

should issue regarding the denial of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment 

arising out of the dismissal of his § 2254 petition. Here, the Court finds that jurists of reason 

would not find it debatable whether the Court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) 

motion for reconsideration. As both prongs of the standard must be satisfied and Petitioner has 

failed to meet one of them, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability under 

Winkles.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 42) is DENIED; and 

2. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01849-AWI-EPG Document 43 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3