ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 28

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.

On April 21, 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 denied the habeas petition on the merits, declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, and entered judgment in favor of respondent on December 29, 2017. Now before the Court is petitioner's "motion for objection to judge finding and order."

Because the motion was filed after judgment was entered, the motion is construed as a motion 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 relief from judgment 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. In short, petitioner disagrees with the Court's ruling, and merely repeats arguments which the Court has already considered and rejected. Accordingly, the motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. Petitioner's request for an extension of time to file a reply supporting his motion is DENIED as unnecessary.

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 25 and 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED.