Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00180/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00180-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Johnson
Petitioner
James 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE JOHNSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JAMES YATES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-00180 OWW DLB HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #18]

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered. Since then, Petitioner has filed

several motions for extension of time. The Court granted his motions and moved the deadline for

filing objections to January 30, 2007. Petitioner did not file objections within the time allotted. On

February 16, 2007, however, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the Findings and

Recommendation.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

Case 1:06-cv-00180-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 03/12/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence

that would call the Findings and Recommendation into question, and his arguments present no basis

for relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED;

2) Petitioner is GRANTED an extension of time of ten (10) court days from the date of

service of this order. The Findings and Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 9, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00180-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2