Filed: Sep. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2013
Summary: ORDER ROBERT B. JONES, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This closed action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. Before the Court is petitioner's motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 60). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not
Summary: ORDER ROBERT B. JONES, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This closed action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. Before the Court is petitioner's motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 60). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT B. JONES, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This closed action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. Before the Court is petitioner's motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 60). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Motions to reconsider are generally left to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In order to succeed on a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See 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).
In the instant case, this Court properly entered judgment dismissing this action in the order filed March 7, 2013. (ECF No. 58). In his motion for relief from judgment, petitioner has not identified any mistake, intervening change in controlling law, or other factor that would require vacating the judgment. Petitioner has not shown that manifest injustice resulted from dismissal of the action. Petitioner also has not presented with relevant newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing under Rule 60(b) to justify granting his motion for relief from judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' motion to file an amended opposition to the motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 60), is DENIED.
