Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02288/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02288-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ROUSER,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTAN PFIFFER,

Respondent.

No. 2:18-CV-2288-WBS-DMC-P

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Final judgment was entered on September 9, 2019. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion, ECF No. 20, for relief from judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and 

any order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten 

days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be 

brought within one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(c)(1). Under Rule 60(b), the Court may also grant reconsideration if: (1) the judgment is 

void; (2) the judgement has been satisfied, released, or discharged, an earlier judgment has been 

Case 2:18-cv-02288-WBS-DMC Document 21 Filed 11/10/20 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

reversed or vacated, or applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; and (3) any 

other reason that justifies relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). A motion for reconsideration 

on any of these grounds must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

In his motion, Petitioner contends that relief from judgment should be granted 

because “this court did error when it ruled that the due process violations did not matter to 

petitioner for since he was a lifer and had a indeterminant sentence he did not get good time.” 

ECF No. 20, pg. 1. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court does not find that relief under Rule 

60(b) is warranted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion, ECF No. 20, 

for relief from judgment is denied and the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

Dated: November 9, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-02288-WBS-DMC Document 21 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2