Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00413/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00413-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. Matevousian
Respondent
Nicholas Queen
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On November 13, 2015, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss and entered 

judgment accordingly. (Doc. 24). The Court found merit in Respondent’s argument that it lacked

habeas jurisdiction and found that Petitioner’s challenge to his conviction and sentence should have 

been raised in the trial court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and that Petitioner had failed to make a 

showing of “actual innocence” sufficient to entitle him to use federal habeas corpus to challenge his 

conviction. (Doc. 21). Here, Petitioner seeks reconsideration. (Doc. 26). Because Petitioner has 

failed to demonstrate an adequate basis for reconsideration, the motion is DENIED.

1. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final 

order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment 

has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 

NICHOLAS QUEEN,

 Petitioner,

v.

A. MATEVOUSIAN, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00413-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 26)

Case 1:15-cv-00413-JLT Document 30 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event 

“not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Moreover, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or 

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what 

other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial 

court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 

456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly 

convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. 

v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration.

He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” He has not shown the 

existence of newly discovered evidence or fraud. He has not shown that the judgment is void or 

satisfied, and, finally, Petitioner has not presented any other justification that would support his request 

for relief from judgment. Most important, Petitioner has not shown “new or different facts or 

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what 

other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). (Emphasis supplied). 

Instead, Petitioner has essentially argued that the Court erred in its legal conclusions regarding 

Petitioner’s claim of actual innocence.1 Those arguments were raised previously in these proceedings 

and rejected by the Court. Petitioner also contends that a new ruling by the Ninth Circuit does not 

require exhaustion. However, the Court’s decision to dismiss the petition was based on the fact that 

Petitioner is not entitled to proceed under section 2241 via the “escape hatch” it provides, not because 

of lack of exhaustion. 

 

1

Petitioner also argues that the Court misapplied Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, since his case was 

filed under section 2255, and that he should have been given an opportunity to argue for issuance of a certificate of 

appealability. Rule 4 was cited only in reference to the Court’s procedural authority to address a respondent’s motion to 

dismiss. Petitioner does not cite, and the Court is unaware of, any authority precluding it from entertaining a motion to 

dismiss under the circumstances of this case. Nor does Petitioner cite any authority requiring the Court to afford Petitioner 

a chance to argue for issuance of a certificate of appealability. The Court carefully reviews and considers each case before

ruling on issuance of such a certificate. Petitioner has no legal entitlement to argument before the Court issues a ruling. 

Case 1:15-cv-00413-JLT Document 30 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Finally, Petitioner contends that the Court failed to rule on his motion to supplement the 

petition. (Doc. 18). Petitioner is mistaken. The Court’s order granting the motion to dismiss also 

denied all pending motions as moot, including Petitioner’s motion to supplement. The Court notes, 

however, that it did review Petitioner’s supplement and considered it before ruling on the motion to 

dismiss. Hence, Petitioner’s argument lacks legal merit. 

In sum, Petitioner has provided no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 60(b), and therefore his motion for reconsideration must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 26), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00413-JLT Document 30 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 3