Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00540/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00540-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIE IRA MENDEZ HAMMONDS, No. 2:02-cv-0540-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

JOE McGRATH, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. On February 8, 2006, Judgment was entered denying

Petitioner’s application. On February 21, 2006, Petitioner filed

a document entitled “Motion for Reconsideration.” Petitioner

argues that this Court failed to consider unspecified factual

evidence that had “a direct bearing” on his claim that the trial

Court erred in excluding evidence of third party culpability.

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00540-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 03/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Petitioner also contends that the Court’s rejection of his claim

of ineffective assistance of trial counsel failed to take into

account counsel’s duty to investigate and present exculpatory

evidence. The Court will construe this document as a motion to

set aside the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) states, in pertinent part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just,

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

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. The motion shall

be made within a reasonable time, and for

reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one

year after the judgment, order, or proceeding

was entered or taken.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief

pursuant to any of the grounds specified in Rule 60(b).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00540-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s February 21,

2006 Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a Motion to Vacate

the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), is denied.

DATED: March 7, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:02-cv-00540-MCE -DAD Document 33 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 3