Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03060/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03060-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD KEYS, SR.,

Peititoner,

 v.

BILL LOCKYER, et al.,

Respondents.

__________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3060 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REHEARING

(Docket No. 9)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his form petition, petitioner indicated

that he had not presented, in the petition for direct review he filed with the California Supreme

Court, the claims raised in the instant action. Also in the form petition, petitioner left blank

the section designated for listing any other petitions filed in the California Supreme Court,

such as a habeas petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without prejudice for

failure to exhaust the claims raised therein.. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for “rehearing,” which the Court construes as a motion for

reconsideration. 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) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6)

Case 3:05-cv-03060-MMC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying

relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court's order or belief that the court is

wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film

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

Petitioner does not indicate the provision of Rule 60(b) under which reconsideration is

warranted. Petitioner alleges no new evidence that could not have been discovered with due

diligence, no mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, no fraud by the adverse

party, and no voiding of the judgment. Petitioner does not provide any other reason justifying

relief. Rather, petitioner states that he had in fact filed a habeas petition in the California

Supreme Court. Attached to his motion is a copy of that petition, as well as the order denying

it. A review of the referenced petition, however, reveals that it does not include the claims

presented in the instant federal petition. As petitioner has not shown that he presented to the

California Supreme Court the claims in the instant petition, there is no basis for

reconsideration of the judgment in this case. 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 29, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03060-MMC Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2