Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05035/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05035-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY T. HARRELL,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. W. ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5035 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT

(Docket nos. 14, 15)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison in

San Quentin, California, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The Court issued an order to show cause and on July 5, 2006, Respondent filed a

motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petition was untimely and that it

failed to state a claim for federal habeas relief (docket no. 5). Petitioner filed an

opposition to the motion (docket no. 6) and Respondent filed a reply (docket no. 7). On

March 12, 2007, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition as

untimely. Petitioner now moves the Court for reconsideration under Federal Rule Of

Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (docket no. 14) and for the Court’s consideration of a recent

California state court decision (docket no. 15).

Where the court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after

dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based on

Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from

Case 3:05-cv-05035-JSW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N.

Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Motions for reconsideration

should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a

means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be

made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one

year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for

reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence

could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir.1993). “Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from

a judgment when “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

application,” or when there is any other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v.

Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). 

In the motion, Petitioner has not met the criteria for relief from judgment on any

of these bases. As such, Petitioner’s motions to reconsider is DENIED (docket nos. 14,

15).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 6, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05035-JSW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ORNOSKI et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-05035 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 6, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gary T. Harrell

California State Prison

San Quentin

B99531

San Quentin, CA 94974

Scott Colin Mather

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Dated: June 6, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05035-JSW Document 16 Filed 06/06/07 Page 3 of 3