Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01535/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01535-3/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

If the Court were to construe the motion as a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, pursuant 1

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), the motion would have to be denied because such a motion must be made within

ten days of the entry of judgment. Here, by contrast, Petitioner waited nine months before filing his

motion.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-cv-01535-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO REOPEN CASE AND/OR

VACATE JUDGMENT (Doc. 8)

ORDER DISREGARDING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 9)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 1, 2006, the Court dismissed the instant petition and entered judgment for

Respondent based on Petitioner’s failure to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Docs. 23 & 24). On September

7, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Reopen Case And/Or Vacate Judgment, contending

that prison officials, not Petitioner, caused the delay in paying his filing fees. (Doc. 25). Also on

September 7, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 26).

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b).1

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part as follows: 

[T]he 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 1:05-cv-01535-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 10/03/07 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

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 high standard. Petitioner’s motion contends that prison officials

caused the fatal delay in paying the filing fees by obstructing Petitioner for “1⁄2 year from submitting

filing fees” and by cancelling a check in May 2007 that would have paid for the fees in this case. 

Even assuming such unsubstantiated allegations were true, however, they fail to explain why

Petitioner made no other efforts during the nine months since entry of judgment to resolve the issue. 

Moreover, Petitioner had already raised with the Court this issue of prison interference with his mail

in a filing on February 16, 2006 (Doc. 21), and therefore he does not now set forth any arguments or

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

basis for relief.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen Case And/Or Vacate Judgment (Doc. 25), is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 26), is DISREGARDED as

MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01535-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2