Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00807-5/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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Doc. 26]

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 has repeatedly filed motions for the appointment of counsel and motions for

reconsideration of the Court’s orders denying said requests for counsel. 

On June 11, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

(Court Docs. 4, 6.) 

On June, 19, 2007, Petitioner filed a second motion for the appointment of counsel. 

(Court Doc. 10.) Petitioner filed another motion for the appointment of counsel on July 10,

2007. (Court Doc. 15.) Both motions were denied on July 19, 2007. (Court Doc. 18.) 

On June 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 11,

2007, order. (Court Doc. 11.) On July 23, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration. (Court Doc. 23.)

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of

Case 1:07-cv-00807-LJO-DLB Document 31 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

2

the appointment of counsel, filed August 15, 2007. (Court Doc. 26.) It is not clear what order

Petitioner is seeking the Court to reconsider. However, it is clear he is requesting reconsideration

of his previous denials for the appointment of counsel. The motion is specifically addressed to

the attention of the undersigned. 

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. 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. Because the

undersigned is simultaneously issuing a recommendation to deny the instant petition for writ of

habeas corpus, no further requests for the appointment of counsel or reconsideration of such prior

denialsIT w IiSllSbOe eOntReDrtaEiRneEdD. . 

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00807-LJO-DLB Document 31 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2