Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01982/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-01982-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom L. Carey
Respondent
Robert Wayne Rogers
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WAYNE ROGERS,

Petitioner,

 v.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-1982 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket Nos. 28-31)

Robert Wayne Rogers (“petitioner”), a California prisoner, proceeding pro so, filed

the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. 

The petition was denied on its merits. Thereafter, petitioner filed a request for a certificate of

appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). 

The request was denied. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his

request for a certificate of appealability.

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that

by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the

adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other

reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir.1993). Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief

are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court's order or belief that the court is wrong

in its decision is not an adequate ground for relief. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp.

v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 3:02-cv-01982-MMC Document 32 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner requests that the court consider additional

arguments not included in the original request for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner

explains that he could not include such arguments in his original request because he was

suffering from severe back pain, a claim he substantiates with copies of his medical records. 

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

Upon reconsideration of petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability,

including the new arguments raised by petitioner, the Court concludes petitioner has not

shown “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). Accordingly,

the request for a certificate of appealability is, upon reconsideration, hereby DENIED.

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with any documents remaining in the case

file, including the motion for reconsideration and related documents, to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner also may seek a certificate of

appealability. See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED. 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 28-31.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2006

 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-01982-MMC Document 32 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2