Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00053/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00053-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VESTER L. PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00053 LJO MJS (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Docs. 32, 34-35]

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 16, 2015, the undersigned dismissed the petition as untimely 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On November 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). (ECF No. 32.) On 

February 25, 2016, Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 

34.) On March 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision on the motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 35.) 

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

Case 1:15-cv-00053-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 03/24/16 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

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 does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already

been considered by this Court. The Court finds that its prior ruling that the petition was 

untimely and had to be dismissed was correct. Petitioner has not argued that his petition 

was timely filed or that he is excused from timely filing based on statutory or equitable 

tolling. As Petitioner has not presented any arguments as to why the finding of the Court 

regarding the timeliness of the Petition was incorrect, he is not entitled to post-judgment 

relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and related motions are

DENIED. (Docs. 32, 34-35.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00053-LJO-MJS Document 36 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2