Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01300/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01300-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEMAIN HUNTER,

1

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE GALAZA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:05-cv-01300-LJO-SKO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 30) 

On October 14, 2005, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his conviction and sentence. On 

August 6, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations recommending that the 

Court dismiss the petition as untimely. The District Court adopted the findings and 

recommendations on September 26, 2007, and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed to the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court judgment on April 15, 

2010. On December 24, 2014, and March 30, 2015, Petitioner moved to be relieved from this 

Court's judgment pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and (6), presenting substantially the same 

arguments presented in support of the original petition and the subsequent appeal. On October 27, 

2015, the Court denied both motions as untimely. On November 6, 2015, Petitioner again moved for 

reconsideration pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6).

As the Court clearly stated in its October 27, 2014, order, a motion for reconsideration of the 

September 26, 2007, judgment is untimely. See F.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). Disagreement with the Court's 

 1 The current motions name Petitioner Jermain Hunter. In the absence of evidence establishing the correct spelling, the 

Court will use the original spelling. 

Case 1:05-cv-01300-LJO-SKO Document 31 Filed 11/10/15 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

2

rulings is not grounds for reconsideration. See Marlin Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES, with prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion for 

Reconsideration. No further motions for reconsideration will be considered, and if one is filed, it 

will be summarily stricken from the record without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: November 9, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01300-LJO-SKO Document 31 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2