Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00883/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00883-6/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 30, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) On 

November 16, 2018, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations to deny the petition 

on the merits. (Doc. 27.) The Court adopted the findings and recommendations on January 8, 2019. 

(Doc. 30.) On December 27, 2019, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 36.) 

For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s motion will be DENIED. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district 

court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds 

of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) 

fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) 

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A 

RENARD BROOKS, JR.,

 Petitioner,

v.

MARTIN BIDER,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00883-LJO-JLT (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 36)

Case 1:18-cv-00883-LJO-JLT Document 37 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 3
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

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year 

after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 

Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party 

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Petitioner fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration: He has not 

shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has certainly not shown the 

existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the judgment is 

either void or satisfied; and, finally, petitioner has not presented any other reasons justifying relief 

from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, petitioner has not shown “new or 

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

Rather, petitioner merely rehashes arguments he made before, or rephrases arguments based on 

the same premise, including claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial 

misconduct, judicial misconduct and false evidence. (See Doc. 36.) However, his arguments were 

already presented and considered by the court. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 36) is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00883-LJO-JLT Document 37 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 1:18-cv-00883-LJO-JLT Document 37 Filed 01/28/20 Page 3 of 3