Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01207-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael L. Benov
Respondent
Cecilio Cortez Lopez
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIO CORTEZ LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden,

Respondent.

1:13-cv-01207 AWI MJS HC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 16)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On March 26, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition. On June 1, 2015, 

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 16.) 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;

Case 1:13-cv-01207-AWI-MJS Document 19 Filed 07/07/15 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

(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 does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already 

been considered by this Court. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the Court's ruling was 

manifestly unjust in its determination that Petitioner was not entitled to a recalculation of 

his good conduct time. Petitioner argues that he was not a sentenced deportable alien 

exempt from educational class enrollment requirements, and that federal regulations do 

not allow for non-Bureau of Prisons staff to calculate good conduct time. Petitioner 

presented similar arguments in his petition, which the Court, upon review, found 

insufficient to warrant relief. His contentions in his motion for reconsideration fare no 

better. Petitioner has not shown that the Court's determination that Respondent 

improperly denied Petitioner 12 days of good conduct time per year based on enrollment 

in the literacy program was incorrect. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01207-AWI-MJS Document 19 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2