Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06580/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06580-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD MORGAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

D.K. SISTO, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-6580 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 8)

On October 23, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 10,

2007, the Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, and judgment was

entered on April 11, 2007. Now before the Court is petitioner’s May 15, 2007 motion for

reconsideration of the order of dismissal. 

Where, as here, the court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion

for reconsideration may be based either on Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) is inapplicable to petitioner’s request, because the request was

submitted after the time for filing such a motion had passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

(providing motion must be filed no more than ten days following entry of judgment). 

Rule 60(b), which does not contain an express deadline for filing, provides for

reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not

have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding

of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). 

Although couched in broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds

justifying relief are extraordinary. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo,

Case 3:06-cv-06580-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In the January 5, 2007 Order to Show Cause, the Court ordered petitioner to file any

opposition within 30 days of the date respondent’s motion was filed. Respondent’s motion

was filed February 27, 2007. 

2

637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Here, petitioner’s request contains no allegation as to newly-discovered evidence, nor

does it set forth any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, fraud by the adverse

party, or voiding of the judgment; petitioner offers no other reason justifying relief. Instead,

petitioner points to his request for an extension of time in which to oppose respondent’s

motion to dismiss. 

The deadline for petitioner to file an opposition was March 29, 2007.1

 On April 10,

2007, the same date as that on which the Court’s dismissal order was filed, and 12 days after

the deadline for the filing of his opposition had passed, petitioner filed a request for an

extension of that deadline. In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner states he mailed the

request on April 4, 2007, but that it “was returned to him by the Post Office for some

unknown reason.” In neither the instant motion nor the motion for an extension of time, does

petitioner provide any explanation, let alone make a showing of good cause, for his having

waited until April 4, 2007, five days after the deadline sought to be extended, before mailing

his request for an extension of time. 

More importantly, and contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the petition was not

dismissed “for failing to file a traverse,” or because petitioner failed to oppose respondent’s

motion, but rather because the petition was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The present

motion does not argue, let alone show, that the petition was filed within AEDPA’s limitations

period. 

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 

This order terminates Docket No. 8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 21, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06580-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 2