Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01547/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01547-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFFIFER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01547-LJO-JDP

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

ECF No. 24

Petitioner Christopher Lipsey, Jr., a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition and amended petition, Petitioner sought habeas 

relief prematurely, during the pendency of his state court trial for assault while incarcerated. 

(ECF No. 1, 13). On August 23, 2019, this Court issued findings and recommendations that the 

Court dismiss the petition due to lack of jurisdiction and deny Respondent’s motion to dismiss as 

moot. (ECF No. 18.) These findings and recommendations were adopted on September 11, 

2019, thereby dismissing the case. (ECF No. 20). On September 29, 2019, Petitioner was 

convicted of assault in the state court proceedings. (ECF No. 24 at 3). On September 30, 2019, 

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting that the instant petition be stayed pending 

exhaustion of his state court claims. (ECF No. 22). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was 

denied on October 7, 2019. (ECF No. 23). Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the final 

Case 1:18-cv-01547-LJO-JDP Document 25 Filed 01/14/20 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

judgment a second time, requesting again that the instant petition be stayed pending exhaustion of 

his state court claims. (ECF No. 24).

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(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; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest 

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. 

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The 

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control . . . .” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Local Rule 230(j) requires Petitioner to show 

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.”

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for granting a motion for 

reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24), 

Petitioner makes the same request made in his objections to the findings and recommendations 

and his previous motion for reconsideration: that his habeas claim be stayed pending exhaustion

of his state court claims. (ECF No. 19, 22). Petitioner has not shown “surprise, or excusable 

neglect;” he has not shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not 

established that the judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, he has not presented any 

other reasons justifying relief from judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In addition, Petitioner has 

not shown “new or different facts or circumstances.” Local Rule 230(j). Instead, Petitioner seeks 

to have his prematurely filed petition stayed while he seeks state court habeas relief related to his 

September 2019 assault conviction. Petitioner may bring new claims which arose after the filing 

of the instant federal petition in a new federal petition after these claims are properly exhausted at 

Case 1:18-cv-01547-LJO-JDP Document 25 Filed 01/14/20 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

the state level. Petitioner may not, however, revive his dismissed petition through a motion for 

reconsideration because he has failed to state adequate grounds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration, filed on October 23, 2019, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01547-LJO-JDP Document 25 Filed 01/14/20 Page 3 of 3