Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00961-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DUNIGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT HICKMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:11-cv-961-MCE-EFB P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 5, 2013, the undersigned dismissed this action 

without prejudice and judgment was duly entered. ECF Nos. 102, 103. Petitioner now moves to 

vacate the judgment. ECF No. 124. 

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 

an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as 

follows:

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 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-MCE-EFB Document 125 Filed 04/03/14 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

new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (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 has not shown that circumstances exist to justify the requested relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment (ECF 

No. 124) is denied. Petitioner is hereby reminded that the court will not respond to future filings 

in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure.

Dated: April 2, 2014

Case 2:11-cv-00961-MCE-EFB Document 125 Filed 04/03/14 Page 2 of 2