Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR, No. 2:96-CV-1401-JAM-CMK

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

RON DAVIS

1

, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 327).

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the court’s (Judge Levi) March 30, 2005, nonfinal order dismissing some claims (Doc. 174).2

 Specifically, petitioner seeks reconsideration as

to Claims EE and LL. 

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Ron Davis is substituted for

his predecessor. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the above

caption.

2 Because the order did not dispose of all claims, it is not a final judgment.

1

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 341 Filed 06/08/15 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

Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any

order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered

within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an

opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a

reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Because the March 30, 2005, order is non-final, and because petitioner’s motion is

based on new evidence3, the motion for reconsideration is brought under Rule 60(b)(2). Motions

under Rule 60(b)(2) must be brought no later than one year of the order being challenged. 

Petitioner’s current motion was not filed until October 2013, making it untimely to challenge a

March 2005 order. To the extent petitioner argues that the one-year limit should not start running

until the new evidence was discovered, all of the new evidence (except the Shatz declaration)

was attached to an April 2012 third state court petition and, thus, was known to petitioner at

least that early. As to the Shatz declaration, which is dated June 18, 2013, petitioner has made no

showing why that declaration could not have been available earlier through due diligence. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 327) is denied as untimely. 

DATED: June 5, 2015

/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3 Petitioner states that, on April 3, 2012, he filed a third state habeas petition

alleging five new claims. According to petitioner, the third state petition is supported by exhibits

attached to the third petition and not previously presented to the state courts. On June 19, 2013,

petitioner supplemented the third state court petition with the June 18, 2013, declaration of Prof.

Steven F. Shatz.

2

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 341 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 2