Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00615/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00615-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Copenhaver
Respondent
John J. Watford
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on April 25, 2014. (Doc. 1). On September 30, 3014, the 

Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the petition. (Doc. 26). On 

December 8, 2014, the Court adopted those Findings and Recommendations, entered judgment against 

Petitioner, and ordered the file closed. (Doc. 31). On December 18, 2014, Petitioner filed a notice of 

appeal. (Doc. 33). Also on that date, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that this Court transcribe its 

records and deliver them to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 35). On January 9, 2015, Petitioner filed the 

instant motion, entitled “Motion for leave to file Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) ‘relation back’ motion for 

reconsideration of district court’s December 08, 2014. [sic] order dismissing Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3) in alternate to grant leave to amend or correct fundamental defect within the original 

JOHN J. WATFORD,

 Petitioner,

v.

PAUL COPENHAVER, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00615-LJO-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 37)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO TRANSCRIBE RECORDS (Doc. 35)

Case 1:14-cv-00615-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 3
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

petition to prevent successive abusive writ procedural bar ‘new claim-same claim doctrine 9(b).’” 

(Doc. 37). On January 23, 2015, the Ninth Circuit ordered Petitioner’s appeal stayed pending this 

Court’s ruling on the above order of Petitioner filed on January 9, 2015. (Docs. 38 & 39). 

DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, although it is far from certain what Petitioner actually intends by the 

aforementioned motion, the Court will construe it as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 

60(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district 

court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds 

of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) 

fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) 

any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A 

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any event “not more than one year 

after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.

Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party 

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for granting a motion for 

reconsideration: He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” nor has he 

not shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the 

judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, Petitioner has not presented any other reasons 

justifying relief from judgment. Instead, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration makes repeated 

references to an amended petition purportedly filed on December 30, 2014, that Petitioner contends 

would apply the “correct [legal] standards as to the questions of Constitutional magnitude,” thus 

Case 1:14-cv-00615-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

rectifying what Petitioner characterizes as his “misapplication” of those standards in his original 

petition. (Doc. 37, p. 3). However, no such amended petition was ever received by the Court or 

docketed in this case. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, Petitioner has not shown “new or 

different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior 

motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). (Emphasis supplied). 

In sum, Petitioner has provided no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 60(b), and therefore his motion for reconsideration must be denied.

Regarding Petitioner’s motion to transcribe and deliver records to the Ninth Circuit, that was 

done as a matter of routine pursuant to Petitioner’s notice of appeal. Accordingly, the motion is moot.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 37), is DENIED. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to transcribe and deliver records (Doc. 35), is DENIED as MOOT. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: January 27, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

United States District Judge

Case 1:14-cv-00615-LJO-JLT Document 40 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 3