ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 31

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

On June 3, 2016, petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court dismissed the petition as procedurally defaulted, declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and entered judgment in favor of respondent on May 30, 2017. Now before the Court is petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Because the motion was filed after judgment was entered, it is construed as a request for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Civil L.R. 7-9(a) (allowing motions for reconsideration only with respect to pre-judgment interlocutory orders). Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Id.

Petitioner's motion fails to make the showing required under Rule 60(b) or otherwise to show good cause for reconsideration. To the contrary, the motion concedes that petitioner's trial counsel possessed the victim arrest records and crime scene report that petitioner claims were illegally withheld by the prosecution, thereby refuting the Brady1 claim underlying the petition. See Mot. for Recon. at 5, 102 (list of documents contained in trial counsel's case file).

Accordingly, the request for relief from judgment is DENIED.

No further filings will be accepted in this closed case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.