Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00706/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00706-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAYETANO T. LARA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-00706 OWW GSA HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

ENTITLED “MOTION FOR CAUSE AND

PREJUDICE”

[Doc. #26]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 22, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for untimeliness be granted. On

November 20, 2008, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, granted

Respondent’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the case, and directed that judgment be entered. The

Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On July 20, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). Petitioner complained that he was not able to oppose Respondent’s

August 1, 2008, motion to dismiss because he is illiterate, has no knowledge of the legal system,

lacks education, and relies on other inmates for assistance. Respondent opposed said motion. On

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-00706-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 02/16/10 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

27

28

August 4, 2009, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s motion for relief. The Court noted that

Petitioner had indeed filed an opposition on August 25, 2008, wherein he presented these same

arguments. The Court considered those arguments but granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

On February 1, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion entitled, “Motion for Cause and

Prejudice.” Petitioner again seeks relief from judgment and renews the same arguments as before. On

February 5, 2010, Respondent opposed the motion arguing that Petitioner has already sought and

been denied the same relief he now seeks. 

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: 

(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.

The Court finds no reason to grant relief from judgment. Petitioner’s arguments have already

been addressed, and his motion presents no basis for relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-00706-OWW -GSA Document 28 Filed 02/16/10 Page 2 of 2