Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01487/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01487-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECIL DEWITT NELSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN LAKE, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S SECOND 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. No. 18)

Petitioner Cecil Dewitt Nelson is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a now closed petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302.

Before the court is petitioner’s second request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 18; see also

Doc. No. 14) of the undersigned’s February 10, 2020 order adopting in full (Doc. No. 10) the 

assigned magistrate judge’s November 22, 2019 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 6). In 

the February 10, 2020 order, the court denied petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus for 

lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 10.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 

district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 

for the following reasons: 

Case 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 04/24/20 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

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 

under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, 

typically “not more than one year after the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Id. 

“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless 

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 

an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or 

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

In the pending motion, petitioner includes a letter from the U.S Bureau of Prisons 

corroborating his earlier claim1that he never received the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations and was therefore unable to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. (Doc. No. 18 at 1, 4.) This does not change the court’s analysis. Even if the 

court construes the arguments that petitioner raises in his pending motion as objections to the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, petitioner’s argument is still unavailing. Like 

in his first request for reconsideration, petitioner contends that the court has jurisdiction over his 

petition. (Id. at 2.) This time, he argues that an exception applies here allowing him to proceed 

under § 2241 because § 2255 provides an inadequate or ineffective remedy. (Id.) However, he 

 

1

 Petitioner had alleged in his first request for reconsideration that he had not received the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 14.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 04/24/20 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

3

provides no applicable reasoning, analysis, or facts to support his argument. (Id.) 

As the court explained in its order denying petitioner’s first request for reconsideration, 

jurisdiction over a challenge to a petitioner’s federal conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 lies solely with the sentencing court. See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 

2006). Although a very narrow exception exists which would allow him to proceed via § 2241, 

petitioner fails to satisfy that exception because he does not show that § 2255 provided an 

inadequate or ineffective remedy. See Ivy v. Pontesso, 328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Having considered the arguments presented by petitioner in his motion on their merits, 

plaintiff’s second request for reconsideration (Doc. No. 18) is denied. The court will entertain no 

further filings in this closed action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01487-DAD-SKO Document 19 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 3