Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00716-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENE HICKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JUAN SALAZAR, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00716 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #12]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 8, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court along with

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the documents revealed that Petitioner

could afford the costs of the action; therefore, on June 27, 2006, the undersigned issued an order

denying the application and directing Petitioner to pay the five dollar filing fee. Petitioner was

granted thirty days to comply. Over thirty days passed and Petitioner failed to respond to the order in

any way. Therefore, on August 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and

Recommendation that recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to comply with a court

order. Petitioner filed objections on September 1, 2006. In light of his objections, the Magistrate

Judge provided Petitioner another opportunity to submit his filing fee; Petitioner was reminded that

Case 1:06-cv-00716-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 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

failure to comply or respond would result in dismissal of the action. Once again, the time provided

lapsed and Petitioner failed to respond in any manner. Over two months after the Magistrate Judge

granted Petitioner another opportunity, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation

and ordered the petition dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply. The Clerk of Court

entered judgment on the same date.

Now, four months later on March 30, 2007, Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration

of the Court’s order dismissing the action. 

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 

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

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. He submits no valid explanation for his repeated

failures to comply or respond. Should Petitioner wish to pursue his claims, he must file a new

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner is advised that in the future he must abide by all court

orders and timely respond or his petition will again be dismissed.

Accordingly, Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00716-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2