Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05787/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05787-5/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE A. ROSAS,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN RATHMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-05787-HSG (PR) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 35

On December 13, 2013, petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court denied the habeas petition on the 

merits, declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and entered judgment in favor of 

respondent on November 17, 2015. On January 6, 2016, petitioner filed a letter stating the 

following:

Honorable Judge:

According to the last letter of my appellate attorney Chris R. Redburn, he 

informed me that besides the decision of the Court of Appeal to remove 

counts 4 and 5, the issues he raised in the Opening Brief & the Reply Brief 

on my direct appeal, case No: A129711, and filed at the Court of Appeal of 

San Francisco, in 2011 and 2012 respectively, are preserved for being 

reviewed in this Federal Court along with my petition for a writ of Habeas 

Corpus. In the document that I received last December first of this year, I 

didn’t find discussion about the section D, of the II issue, on page 36 of the 

Opening Brief, where he described and documented the ineffective 

assistance of trial attorney. If the Court of Appeal didn’t provide your 

office with those documents, I’ll be glad to mail a copy to your office.

Dkt. No. 34. Petitioner filed the identical letter again on February 8, 2016. See Dkt. No. 35.

The letter appears to be a request for reconsideration of the Court’s November 17, 2015 

order denying the habeas petition on the ground that the Court failed to consider issues raised in 

petitioner’s opening brief on direct appeal of his conviction to the California Court of Appeal. 

Case 4:13-cv-05787-HSG Document 36 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Because the letter was filed after judgment was entered, it is construed as a request for relief from 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Civil L.R. 7-9(a) (allowing motions 

for reconsideration only with respect to pre-judgment interlocutory orders). Rule 60(b) provides 

for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 

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

have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment 

is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for 

reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for 

appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Id. 

Petitioner’s letter fails to make the showing required under Rule 60(b) or otherwise to 

show good cause for reconsideration. The Court’s November 17, 2015 order addressed all the 

claims raised in the petition. To the extent petitioner sought to bring additional claims raised in 

his opening brief on direct appeal in state court, it was his responsibility to include them in his 

federal petition. A federal petition does not implicitly incorporate all claims raised by a petitioner 

in state court. Accordingly, the request for relief from judgment is DENIED.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/10/2016

Case 4:13-cv-05787-HSG Document 36 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2