Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00220/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00220-4/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

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

C.D.C.R., BOARD OF PAROLE )

HEARINGS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-00220 AWI GSA HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT 

[Doc. #17]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 10, 2008, the undersigned issued an order summarily dismissing the petition as

successive and for failure to exhaust state remedies. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the

same date.

On May 29, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

Case 1:08-cv-00220-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 06/24/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner contends the action should be reopened since he has recently exhausted his state

remedies. His arguments are not persuasive. Petitioner has not provided evidence that he exhausted

his state remedies prior to the court dismissing this action. If indeed Petitioner has now exhausted

his state remedies with respect to the Rules Violation Report, he must file a new petition. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00220-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 06/24/08 Page 2 of 2