Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01309/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01309-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Rodriguez Garcia
Petitioner
Raul Lopez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE RODRIGUEZ GARCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

RAUL LOPEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01309 LJO DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[ECF No. 30]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On January 10, 2011, the Court issued an order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and 

dismissing the petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment was entered the same date. 

On February 7, 2011, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, and the appeal was transferred to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 24, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the appeal.

On July 15, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff seeks to 

have judgment vacated and the habeas corpus action reinstated because he claims the Court does in 

fact have jurisdiction to hear his claims. Plaintiff cites to several 2011 and 2012 cases in support of 

his claim.

DISCUSSION

 Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from an order for “(1) mistake, inadvertence, 

Case 1:10-cv-01309-LJO-DLB Document 31 Filed 07/16/15 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

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; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 

60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be 

utilized only where extraordinary circumstances ...” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate 

both injury and circumstances beyond his control....” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, “and for reasons (1), 

(2), and (3) no more than a year after entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

In this case, Petitioner makes no argument for reconsideration apart from citing to several 

cases. Moreover, Petitioner’s motion is clearly untimely given the judgment he seeks to vacate was 

entered over four years ago. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01309-LJO-DLB Document 31 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2