Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00611/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00611-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Beard
Respondent
Gregory Downs
Petitioner

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY DOWNS,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-0611 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, or “pro se.” By order filed April 

22, 2015, the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was 

dismissed without prejudice. On May 14, 2015, petitioner filed a request for extension of time to 

file an “objection” to the April 22, 2015 dismissal. However, on April 1, 2015, petitioner 

consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). “Once a 

civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under section 636(c), the reference can be withdrawn 

by the court only ‘for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary circumstances 

shown by any party.’” Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). The 

undersigned does not find good cause to withdraw petitioner’s consent and petitioner has not 

presented extraordinary circumstances entitling him to withdraw his consent. Thus, to the extent 

petitioner seeks an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration by a district judge, such 

request is denied. 

Case 2:15-cv-00611-KJN Document 10 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 4
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

To the extent petitioner seeks an extension of time in which to file a motion for 

reconsideration of the April 22, 2015 order and judgment, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioner’s request is granted. Rule 60(b) provides as follows:

Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or 

Proceeding. 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 judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; 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). 

In seeking reconsideration of an order, Local Rule 230(j) requires plaintiff to show “what 

new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Id. “A motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 

intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present 

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” 

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 

Case 2:15-cv-00611-KJN Document 10 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Good cause appearing, petitioner is granted an extension of time in which to file a motion 

for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b). 

In his request, petitioner also asks the court to issue an order to be provided with copies of 

legal decisions, similar to the order issued in Davis v. Lafler, 692 F.Supp.2d 705 (E.D. Mich. 

Aug. 11, 2009). In Davis, the district court ordered the respondent in a habeas action to provide 

the pro se petitioner with paper copies of any unpublished decisions and electronically-availableonly opinions to which respondent had cited or may cite in respondent’s pleadings. Id. at 706. 

Here, respondent was not served, and there has been no appearance by the Office of the 

Attorney General. Thus, there is no respondent to order to provide petitioner with copies of legal 

authorities. Moreover, the April 22, 2015 order explained the ground for the dismissal. Petitioner 

filed his action on the form for filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Habeas 

corpus proceedings are appropriate for challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner’s 

confinement. Petitioner made no such challenge here. Rather, in petitioner’s initial pleading, 

petitioner alleged violations of his right to equal protection and due process, and violations of the 

ADA and the IDEA; such claims challenge petitioner’s conditions of confinement and must be 

raised in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 7 at 2.) Thus, 

because habeas jurisdiction was absent, the action was dismissed.1 In addition, as set forth above, 

the undersigned has provided petitioner with the standards governing a motion for reconsideration 

under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

For these reasons, petitioner’s request for an order under Davis is denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file objections, or a motion for 

reconsideration by a district judge, (ECF No. 9), is denied; 

////

 

1

 The undersigned also noted that petitioner, as a nonlawyer proceeding without counsel, could 

not pursue this case as a class action. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) On page 16 of petitioner’s typewritten 

attachment to the habeas form, petitioner included himself and 19 other inmates, complete with 

their inmate identification numbers. (ECF No. 1 at 16.) The first sentence of his attachment 

began: “Class action Writ of Habeas Corpus for violation of the Americans with Disability Act . . 

. .” (ECF No. 1 at 16.)

Case 2:15-cv-00611-KJN Document 10 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 9) to file a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) is granted; 

3. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file a motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b); and

4. Petitioner’s request to be provided with copies of legal decisions is denied without 

prejudice.

Dated: May 27, 2015

/down0611.36

Case 2:15-cv-00611-KJN Document 10 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 4