Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00522/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00522-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

GEORGE S. GUIRBINO, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:09-cv-00522-AWI-JLT HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 26)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on

March 19, 2009. (Doc. 1). 

On August 18, 2009, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, contending that

because Petitioner had already served all of the various parole revocations and extensions upon

which the petition’s claims were predicated, the petition was now moot. (Doc. 17). On February 5,

2010, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 

(Doc. 23). On March 17, 2010, the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations and

entered judgment. (Docs. 24 & 25). On April 5, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for

reconsideration, contending that the petition was not moot because he remained in Respondent’s

custody while he is on parole. (Doc. 26). 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00522-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 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

27

28

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

. . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . .

. or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one

year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to

show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider

are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for granting a motion for

reconsideration: He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has

certainly not shown either newly discovered evidence or fraud; the judgment has not been shown to

be either void or satisfied; and Petitioner has not presented any other reasons justifying relief from

judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, Petitioner has not alleged “new or

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 

Indeed, the only argument Petitioner raises is that the petition is not moot because he remains

in the custody of Respondent while on parole. This fact, however, standing alone, does not entitle

Petitioner to reconsideration. Indeed, in its Findings and Recommendations, the Court expressly

acknowledged that Petitioner, while on parole, remains in the “constructive” custody of Respondent 

in his capacity as a parolee. (Doc. 23, p. 6). However, as the Court pointed out in the Findings and

2

Case 1:09-cv-00522-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 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

27

28

Recommendations, Petitioner cannot meet the “in custody” requirement of federal habeas law

because “Petitioner is not currently ‘in custody’ for the parole violations and disciplinary violations

which form the basis of this habeas corpus proceeding.” (Id.). Petitioner has already been released

from prison. The present petition is moot because Petitioner has not shown that a favorable decision

will provide Petitioner with any redress that he has not already received. See Hoffman v. Marshall, 

2010 WL 107203, *1 (9 Cir. 2010); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9 Cir. 2005). th th

Nothing in Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration shows what relief is still available because

Petitioner has already been released on parole. 

In sum, Petitioner has provided no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the

requirements of Rule 60(b), and therefore his motion for reconsideration must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.

26), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00522-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 3