Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01396/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01396-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN B. GOSSMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01396 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On December 6, 2006, the undersigned issued an order granting Respondent’s motion to

dismiss, dismissing the petition, and directing that judgment be entered. Judgment was entered the

same date.

On December 21, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

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

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

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 

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

Case 1:06-cv-01396-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 08/23/07 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

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 fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence

that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner’s arguments present no basis for

relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01396-OWW -LJO Document 9 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 2