Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01120/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01120-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andres Carmona Meza, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 05-CV-1120-PHX-PGR (LOA) 

)

v. ) ORDER

)

Deputy Warden Perkins, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion in Response to Court

Order (Doc. 13), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, pro se, urges the Court to

reevaluate its decision of June 8, 2005 (Doc. 11) denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Change

of Judge, Lawrence O. Anderson, Pursuant to Sections 351-364 of Title 28 of the United

States Code (Doc. 7).

Rule 60(b) permits reconsideration of a district court order based on: (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 new trial under Rule 59; (3)

fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the

judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is

based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment

should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

Case 2:05-cv-01120-PGR Document 23 Filed 10/26/05 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 - 2 -

operation of judgment. See Fed. R, Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(b)(6). Generally, a motion for

reconsideration under Rule 60 should not be granted: (1) there has been an intervening

change of controlling law; (2) newly discovered evidence has come to light; or (3) when

necessary to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. School District No. 1J v.

AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, a rule 60(b) motion must be

brought within a reasonable time, which cannot be more than one year if the motion is based

on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The Court finds the Plaintiff's arguments for reconsideration unpersuasive. Because

he has not shown that the Court erred in denying his motion for a change of judge, that new

evidence has come to light, or that there has been an intervening change in the law, see

ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1262, reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) is inappropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion in Response to Court Order (Doc. 13) is

DENIED.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01120-PGR Document 23 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2