Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01729/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01729-4/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. #41]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 22, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the

undersigned’s order dated February 19, 2010. 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

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

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-01729-OWW -DLB Document 42 Filed 04/01/10 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

longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner’s arguments have already been considered

twice by the undersigned and once by the District Judge. As previously stated, those arguments

present no basis for relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 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 42 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2