Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01513-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Andy Delgado Rodriguez
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDY DELGADO RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF No. 18

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 13, 2014, the petition was dismissed as successive. Petitioner appealed to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on April 4, 2014, the appeal was denied. 

On May 23, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

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), 

Case 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB Document 19 Filed 10/29/14 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

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.

Petitioner’s arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. Petitioner contends 

the Court did not review his arguments for cause and prejudice. As previously stated, the 

petition is successive. Petitioner has already sought relief in the prior case of Rodriguez v. 

Yates, Case No. 1:09-CV-00119-AWI-SMS-HC. Absent authorization from the Ninth Circuit, 

the petition must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED; and

(2) Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01513-AWI-SAB Document 19 Filed 10/29/14 Page 2 of 2