Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00122-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELLAS HOFFMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00122-GSA-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

SECOND MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 19)

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

28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 11, 2015, the undersigned dismissed the petition. (ECF No. 7). 

On May 18, 2015, the Court granted the motion to withdraw as attorney. (ECF No. 16). On 

May 18, 2015, Petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing 

the case. (ECF No. 17). On June 17, 2015, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 18). On July 13, 2015, Petitioner filed a second motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 19).

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

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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: 

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 20 Filed 07/30/15 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

(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.

Petitioner’s arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. As to subsection 

(b)(1), a court may reconsider its judgment when there has been surprise, excusable neglect, 

inadvertence, or mistake, including an error of law. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 691 

F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982). 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.” Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. 

United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950)). The rule “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) (internal citations 

omitted). 

Petitioner argues that new United States Supreme Court case of Johnson v. United States, 

135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), stands for the proposition that challenges to statutory law are always 

retroactive. (ECF No. 19 at 1). However, Johnson’s reasoning is limited in application to the 

validity of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) residual clause. See Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 

2563. The Supreme Court held that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of 

the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Our 

contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Today’s decision does not call into question 

application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of 

a violent felony.” Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 2563. 

It appears that Petitioner’s arguments related to Johnson are to support his claims 

concerning Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), and the 

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 20 Filed 07/30/15 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

categorical approach to the residual clause of the ACCA. In Petitioner’s first motion for 

reconsideration, he raised an argument related to Descamps. As the Court previously noted, 

Petitioner did not raise any arguments related to Descamps in his petition. If Petitioner wishes to 

raise claims concerning Descamps, he must do so in a new petition, but the Court expresses no 

opinion as to the merits of such a petition. Thus, Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration 

must be denied. 

ORDER

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

reconsideration (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00122-EPG Document 20 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 3