Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00036/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00036-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN R. GHOLAR, SR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:10-CV-00036 GSA HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #7]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 11, 2010, the undersigned denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel.

The Court determined that the interests of justice would not be served by the appointment of counsel

at the present time. On January 21, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

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

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; 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:10-cv-00036-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 01/25/10 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

(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 fails to meet this standard. He does not set forth any arguments or evidence that

have not already been considered by this Court. The Court has not yet reviewed the petition. Once a

review has been conducted and the Court determines at that time that counsel should be appointed, it

will do so. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 25, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:10-cv-00036-AWI-GSA Document 8 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2