Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06044/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06044-1/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

CAL TERHUNE, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:99-CV-06044 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #34]

BACKGROUND

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

U.S.C. § 2254. On March 28, 2000, the undersigned issued an order that adopting the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the

petition because the petition was filed outside of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s one year limitation period

and some of the petition’s claims were unexhausted. On March 29, 2000, the Clerk of the Court

entered judgement.

On April 12, 2000, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The record on appeal was returned on

December 28, 2000.

On January 19, 2007, Petitioner field a motion to re-open this case.

 

Case 1:99-cv-06044-AWI-LJO Document 37 Filed 04/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final

judgment based on specific grounds, such as: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged

judgment; or (6) “extraordinary circumstances” which would justify relief. The Ninth Circuit has

stated that “[c]lause 60(b)(6) is residual and ‘must be read as being exclusive of the preceding

clauses.’” LaFarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9 Cir. 1986) th

(quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9 Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, “the clause is th

reserved for ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Id.

All motions made pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) must be brought not more than one year from

the entrance of the order. All other Rule 60(b) motions must be brought “within a reasonable time.” 

“What constitutes reasonable time depends on the facts of each case, taking into consideration the

interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the

grounds relied upon, and prejudice to the other parties.” Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055

(9 Cir.1981) (per curiam). th

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new

arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9 Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the court to th

rethink what it has already thought. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116

(D.Ariz.1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the

Court's decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before

rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden.” U.S. v. Westlands Water

Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local

Rule 78-230(k) 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.”

In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner contends the court erred some seven years ago in

finding that Petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition did not comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)’s

Case 1:99-cv-06044-AWI-LJO Document 37 Filed 04/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

one year statute of limitations. The only grounds that would allow the court to re-open this case at

this late date would be some “extraordinary circumstances” that would justify relief. Petitioner has

simply failed to make a showing that such extraordinary circumstances exist, and as such, Petitioner

is not entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b). In his motion, Petitioner

contends that he could not immediately file a federal habeas corpus petition because he first had to

exhaust his state remedies. However, the court took into account Petitioner’s need to exhaust state

remedies and provided Petitioner some tolling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). In addition,

Petitioner claims Respondent never addressed Petitioner’s claims of equitable tolling. Nothing in

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Petitions Brought Pursuant to

Section 2254, nor this court’s Local Rules required Respondent to file a reply brief. Petitioner’s

claims of equitable tolling based on his medical needs and the absence of a fellow inmate, who had

been assisting Petitioner, were addressed and rejected by the court. Petitioner’s motion simply

raises no new contentions that were not already considered and rejected by the court, and nothing

mentioned in Petitioner’s motion rises to the level of extraordinary circumstances. In addition,

Petitioner has not explained why he waited seven years to file this motion and why the contentions

made in this motion could not have been raised earlier. Reconsideration in this case is simply not

warranted.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06044-AWI-LJO Document 37 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3