Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00961/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00961-10/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

KEVIN DUNIGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT HICKMAN,

Respondent.

No. 2:11-cv-961-MCE-EFB P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 5, 2013, the undersigned

dismissed this action without prejudice and judgment was duly entered. ECF Nos. 102, 

103. Petitioner now moves to vacate the judgment. ECF No. 143. 

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 

there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provides as follows:

///

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-00961-MCE-EFB Document 144 Filed 02/13/15 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

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its 

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: (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.

Petitioner has not shown that circumstances exist to justify the requested relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment

(ECF No. 143) is denied. Petitioner is hereby reminded that the court will not respond to 

future filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Dated: February 12, 2015

Case 2:11-cv-00961-MCE-EFB Document 144 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2