(HC) Dilbert v. Fisher ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD ALAN DILBERT, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01835-DAD-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION ) FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. ) ) (Doc. No. 15) 14 R. FISHER, Warden, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 11, 2021, the assigned magistrate 19 judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed. (Doc. No. 20 8.) On January 21, 2021, petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and 21 recommendations. (Doc. No. 11.) The court adopted the findings and recommendations on April 30, 22 2021. (Doc. No. 13.) Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, filed on May 23 18, 2021.1 (Doc. No. 15.) 24 ///// 25 26 27 1 Petitioner also titles this filing as objections to the findings and recommendations (see Doc. No. 15); however, petitioner already filed objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 11), 28 which the court considered in adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing the petition (see Doc. No. 13). 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district 3 court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds 4 of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) 5 fraud . . . by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) 6 any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made 7 within a reasonable time, in any event “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or 8 the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 9 Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 10 the “new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 11 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 12 committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 13 (D.C.C. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party 14 must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 15 decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 16 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 Petitioner fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration. He has not 18 shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has certainly not shown the 19 existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the judgment is 20 either void or satisfied; and, finally, petitioner has not presented any other reasons justifying relief 21 from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the court’s Local Rules, petitioner has not shown “new or 22 different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 23 prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 24 Instead, petitioner continues to assert that he is challenging his conditions of confinement 25 brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and requests the court to issue a certificate of appealability. 26 (Doc. No. 15 at 4–6.) However, the court has previously addressed these issues and explained that a 27 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a federal habeas petition, is the proper 28 method by which a prisoner may challenge the conditions of his confinement. (See Doc. Nos. 8 at 3, 1 || 13 at 2.) To the extent “petitioner is seeking compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 due 2 || to the risks posed to him by the COVID-19 pandemic,” he must bring his request before the sentencir 3 || court. (Doc. No. 13 at 2 (citing Doc. No. 8 at 3).) 4 ORDER 5 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. sae sie 8 || Dated: _ July 22, 2021 Ye A £ aay 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28