(HC) Sandstrom v. Warden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN MICHAEL SANDSTROM, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01618-JLT-BAK (SKO) (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION ) FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 20) 14 WARDEN, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 29, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 18 On January 10, 2022, the Court issued an order dismissing the petition. (Doc. 18.) Pending before the 19 Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, filed on January 18, 2022. (Doc. 20.)1 20 DISCUSSION 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the district 22 court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on grounds 23 of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) 24 fraud . . . by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) 25 any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made 26 27 1 Petitioner also subsequently filed a miscellaneous motion on January 21, 2022, requesting that Chief Judge Kimberly 28 Mueller review his petition. (Doc. 21.) Petitioner continues to assert the same arguments that were already presented and 1 || within a reasonable time, in any event “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order o 2 || the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 3 Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230) requires a party to sho 4 || the “new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 5 || upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 6 || committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 7 |) (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party 8 || must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 9 || decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 10 || 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 11 Petitioner fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration. He has not 12 shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; the existence of either newly 13 || discovered evidence or fraud; that the judgment is either void or satisfied; or any any other reasons 14 || justifying relief from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, Petitioner has not 15 || shown “new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 16 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule □□□□□□ 17 Petitioner continues to assert the same arguments regarding actual innocence made in his 18 || petition and objections to the findings and recommendations. (See Doc. 20.) However, his argument 19 || were already presented and considered by the Court. The Court finds nothing in the motion for 20 || reconsideration that changes the conclusions previously drawn. 21 ORDER 22 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 20) is 23 || DENIED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ February 15, 2022 ( LAW pA LU. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28