Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01729/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01729-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Allen Falls
Petitioner
James A. Yates
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ALLEN FALLS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES A. YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-01729 OWW SMS HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #47]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 11, 2010, the undersigned issued an order denying Petitioner’s application for

appointment of counsel. On May 25, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. He

claims counsel should be appointed because he is a participant in the mental health care program. 

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

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-01729-OWW -DLB Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 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

judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no

longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Petitioner’s arguments do not meet any of the criteria set forth above. The petition has

already been briefed and is pending a decision by this Court. Appointment of counsel at this juncture

would serve no purpose. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-01729-OWW -DLB Document 48 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2