ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(b)

EDWARD F. SHEA, Senior District Judge.

On January 22, 2019, Defendant Antonio Aguilar-Lopez filed "Memorandum Motion Brief to Reply to the District Court Order Denying Construed Motion for Reconsideration Motion Rule 58(a) Violated Rule 8(c) Right of Evidentiary Hearing is Required to Appoint Counsel — Petitioner's Here Applied Fed. R. Civ. 60(b)(6) Apply Discretion and Power to Vacate Judgment in Light of Supreme Court Opinion in of Gonzalez (supra) 2005 [1563]," ECF No. 287. The Court construes this brief as a motion for relief of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

In his construed Motion for Relief of Judgment, Mr. Aguilar-Lopez reiterates the same arguments he presented in his Construed Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement, ECF Nos. 283 & 285.1 Some arguments are copied verbatim, others are reiterated almost verbatim. See id. All arguments are framed in a request for relief from the Court's July 23, 2015 dismissal of Mr. Aguilar-Lopez's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See ECF No. 261.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states that upon "motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." Mr. Aguilar-Lopez requests relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which must be made within a "reasonable" amount of time, and "may only be granted where the petitioner has diligently pursued review of his claims." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1); Foley v. Biter, 793 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir. 2015). Relief from judgment under this rule "requires a showing of `extraordinary circumstances'" and must be "used sparingly and as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice." Gonazalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536 (2005)2; Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). "Such circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context." Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535.

The Court's Order from which Mr. Aguilar-Lopez seeks relief was docketed on July 23, 2015—over three years ago. ECF No. 261. Since then, Mr. Aguilar-Lopez has pursued numerous avenues to advance his claims, all of which have been unsuccessful due to their merits or procedural defects. Mr. Aguilar-Lopez has shown reasonable diligence in pursuing his claims. However, as the Court stated in its previous Order, in which the Court denied Mr. Aguilar-Lopez's nearly identical arguments, ECF Nos. 283 & 285, Mr. Aguilar-Lopez has not demonstrated such extraordinary circumstances as to warrant relief. See ECF No. 286. As such, and for the reasons stated above, the Court denies Mr. Aguilar-Lopez's construed Motion for Relief of Judgment Under Rule 60(b), ECF No. 287.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to Mr. Aguilar-Lopez and the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Washington.