Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01818/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01818-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
Kenneth Wayne Howard
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH WAYNE HOWARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01818 OWW NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #14]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 25, 2007, the undersigned issued an order denying appointment of counsel. 

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b) on

May 21, 2007. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (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(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of 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 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence

that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner’s arguments present no basis for

relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 2