ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 327).

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the court's (Judge Levi) March 30, 2005, non-final order dismissing some claims (Doc. 174).2 Specifically, petitioner seeks reconsideration as to Claims EE and LL.

Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration of a final judgment and any order based on, among other things: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within ten days of entry of judgment; and (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an opposing party. A motion for reconsideration on any of these grounds must be brought within a reasonable time and no later than one year of entry of judgment or the order being challenged. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Because the March 30, 2005, order is non-final, and because petitioner's motion is based on new evidence3, the motion for reconsideration is brought under Rule 60(b)(2). Motions under Rule 60(b)(2) must be brought no later than one year of the order being challenged. Petitioner's current motion was not filed until October 2013, making it untimely to challenge a March 2005 order. To the extent petitioner argues that the one-year limit should not start running until the new evidence was discovered, all of the new evidence (except the Shatz declaration) was attached to an April 2012 third state court petition and, thus, was known to petitioner at least that early. As to the Shatz declaration, which is dated June 18, 2013, petitioner has made no showing why that declaration could not have been available earlier through due diligence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 327) is denied as untimely.