Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02437/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02437-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Rouser
Petitioner
State of California
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ROUSER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

No. 2:10-cv-2437 MCE CKD (HC)

ORDER

On October 7, 2011, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as 

successive and time-barred. ECF Nos. 20, 23. On October 9, 2014, Petitioner filed a “Motion 

Under FRCP 60(b).” ECF No. 31.

A district court may reconsider a ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 

an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s motion is directed at the Court’s finding that this action is 

time barred. Petitioner makes no attempt to argue that this case should not have been dismissed 

as successive. After reviewing the motion, the Court finds that Petitioner has not provided 

sufficient grounds to vacate the judgment.

Case 2:10-cv-02437-MCE-CKD Document 38 Filed 11/17/15 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s October 9, 2014 “Motion 

Under FRCP 60(b)” (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015

Case 2:10-cv-02437-MCE-CKD Document 38 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2