Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06047/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06047-0/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

JOHNNEY RAMEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

G. LEWIS, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:98-CV-06047 OWW HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #90]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 16, 2003, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered. On September 4,

2003, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and

directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment the next day. Petitioner

appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 6, 2006, the Ninth

Circuit affirmed the judgment.

Nearly three years later, on July 7, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing in the Ninth

Circuit. The motion was denied as untimely. Then on July 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:98-cv-06047-OWW -SMS Document 92 Filed 02/03/10 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

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.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Just as the Ninth Circuit determined Petitioner’s

motion for rehearing was untimely, so does this Court find his motion for reconsideration. 

Petitioner’s arguments present no basis for relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:98-cv-06047-OWW -SMS Document 92 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2