Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00029/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00029-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERMOGENES PENA BONDOC, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

NEIL ADLER, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-00029 LJO SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #15]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 23, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered. On February 29, 2008, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and directed that

judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On May 19, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

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 

Case 1:08-cv-00029-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 05/22/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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 

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

operation of the judgment.

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

have not already been considered by this Court, and his arguments present no basis for relief. The

fact remains that Petitioner is a federal prisoner seeking to challenge his conviction. For this reason

and for those reasons set forth in previous orders, he is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Jurisdiction lies with the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00029-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 2