Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00053/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00053-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vester L. Patterson
Petitioner
Stu Sherman
Respondent

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VESTER L. PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00053 LJO MJS (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE 

JUDGMENT

[Doc. 37]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On September 16, 2015, the undersigned dismissed the petition as untimely 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On November 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). (ECF No. 32.) On 

February 25, 2016, Petitioner filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 

34.) On March 21, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion for a decision on the motion for 

reconsideration. (ECF No. 35.) The Court denied all three motions on March 24, 2016 as 

Petitioner did not present any new arguments that would entitle him to relief. 

On June 17, 2016 Petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate the judgment. (ECF 

No. 37.) Respondent filed an opposition to the motion on June 28, 2016. (ECF No. 38.)

Case 1:15-cv-00053-LJO-MJS Document 39 Filed 09/27/16 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

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

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 does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already

been considered by this Court. The Court finds that its prior ruling that the petition was 

untimely and required to be dismissed was correct. Petitioner has not argued that his 

petition was timely filed or that he is excused from timely filing based on statutory or 

equitable tolling. As Petitioner has not presented any arguments as to why the finding of 

the Court regarding the timeliness of the Petition was incorrect, he is not entitled to postjudgment relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED. (Doc. 37.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00053-LJO-MJS Document 39 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2