Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01487/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01487-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Washington
Petitioner
J. Woodford
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

J. WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-01487 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO VACATE 

[Doc. #15]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 14, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered. On August 17, 2006, the

undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and directed that

judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On November 28, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure § 60(b). 

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 

Case 1:05-cv-01487-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 02/26/07 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

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 

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 to vacate is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01487-OWW -GSA Document 16 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2