Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01208/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01208-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick O. Williams
Petitioner
Rafael Zuniga
Respondent

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

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on August 4, 2015. (Doc. 1). On August 13, 2015, the 

Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition for lack of habeas 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 4). On October 16, 2015, the District Judge adopted those Findings and 

Recommendations, entered judgment against Petitioner, and ordered the file closed. (Docs. 21; 22). 

On November 2, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 23).

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district 

court. Rule 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) 

RODERICK O. WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner,

v.

RAFAEL ZUNIGA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01208-AWI-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 23)

Case 1:15-cv-01208-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 11/09/15 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

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.” 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, when filing a motion for reconsideration, 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 certainly not shown 

the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the judgment is 

either void or satisfied; and, finally, Petitioner has not presented any other reasons justifying relief from 

judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, 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). 

Indeed, Petitioner’s sole argument for reconsideration is his self-serving allegation that he “has 

made a showing beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he has not had an unobstructed 

procedural shot...” at raising his claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, 

and judicial misconduct and bias. (Doc. 23, p. 1). Contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, the Magistrate 

Judge noted in her Findings and Recommendations that Petitioner had raised these very arguments in 

the sentencing court with his two prior motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 4, p. 4).

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.

Case 1:15-cv-01208-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 11/09/15 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

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23), 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01208-AWI-JLT Document 27 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 3