(HC) Rouser v. Unknown ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:18-cv-1358-JAM-EFB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On December 19, 2018, this habeas action was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of 18 a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 14. Judgment was duly entered. 19 ECF No. 15. On April 15, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 20 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 16. 21 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment where one of more of the 22 following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 23 discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within 24 twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an 25 opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other 26 reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a 27 “reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the 28 judgment of order or the date of the proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P 60(c)(1). 1 Because petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion more than a year after the entry of 2 judgment, he must demonstrate he is entitled to relief for reasons (4), (5), and/or (6). Petitioner, 3 however, has not shown he is entitled to relief from judgment for any of the reasons enumerated 4 in Rule 60(b). Petitioner argues that the court erred in dismissing his petition, which challenged 5 the results of a prison rules violation report, because on April 2, 2020, the Board of Parole 6 Hearings relied upon that disciplinary report to deny him parole for ten years. ECF No. 16. 7 Even so, petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary action does not fall within the “core of habeas 8 corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). As stated in the findings and 9 recommendations underlying the order of dismissal (ECF No. 12), the petition does not present a 10 basis for habeas jurisdiction because even if the disciplinary report were expunged from 11 petitioner’s record, it would not necessarily result in petitioner’s speedier release. See id. 12 (observing that a rules violation is just one of many factors a parole board may consider in 13 determining a prisoner’s suitability for parole). 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from 15 judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. 16 DATED: May 11, 2020 17 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28