Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00807-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS VALDEZ BERMUDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, et.al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 07-00807 LJO DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S

JUNE 11, 2007, ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. 11]

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”)

and is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

 Petitioner filed the instant petition on June 1, 2007, along with a motion for the

appointment of counsel. (Court Docs. 1, 4.) On June 11, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner’s

motion for the appointment of counsel. (Court Doc. 6.) 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June

11, 2007, order denying his request for the appointment of counsel, filed June 20, 2007. (Court

Doc. 11.) 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

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 

Case 1:07-cv-00807-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 07/23/07 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

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or

evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner’s arguments present no

basis for relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00807-LJO-DLB Document 23 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2