Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00086-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS WARNER,

Petitioner,

v.

SWARTHOUT, Warden

Respondent.

/

1:10-cv-00086-DLB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. 11]

On January 26, 2010, the undersigned dismissed the instant petition for writ of habeas

corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without prejudice for failure to exhaust the state

judicial remedies. (Court Doc. 9.) The Court also denied Petitioner’s motion to stay and hold the

1

petition in abeyance. (Id.) 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed on February

18, 2010. (Court Doc. 11.) Petitioner requests to submit a new petition containing the exhausted

claims that he neglected to present in his original petition. (Id.) 

Rule 60 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs the reconsideration of final orders

of the district court. The rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or

judgment on the grounds of: “(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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

1

Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 305(b).

1

Case 1:10-cv-00086-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 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

new trial under Rule 59(b) ; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgement is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied . . . ; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The motion for reconsideration must be made within a

reasonable time, in any event, “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding

was entered or taken.” Id.

To the extent Petitioner seeks to present new claims to this Court by way of a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, his remedy is to re-file a new § 2254

petition- not reconsideration and reinstatement of this action. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion

for reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00086-DLB Document 12 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2