(HC) Simmons v. People of the State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, No. 2:21-cv-01033 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1S Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 | corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings 19 | and recommendations and dismissed the application without prejudice as a second or successive 20 | application. Prior Order (Jan. 17, 2023), ECF No. 16. Petitioner now seeks relief from judgment 21 | under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Mot. at 3, ECF No. 17. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs relief from orders and judgments of the 23 | district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 24 | on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; .. . (3) fraud... by an 25 | opposing party, . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The 26 | motion for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. /d. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be 27 | used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only 1 | where [there are] extraordinary circumstances.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2 | 2008). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control 3 | ....” Jd. Local Rule 230() also requires plaintiffs to show “what new or different facts or 4 | circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, 5 | or what other grounds exist for the motion.” As the Ninth Circuit has observed, “‘a motion for 6 | reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 7 | court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 8 | intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 9 | & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in omitted). Such a motion “may not be used 10 | to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 11 | raised earlier in the litigation.” Jd. 12 Although portions of petitioner’s motion are difficult to comprehend, the court finds 13 | petitioner does not present any newly discovered evidence, argue the court has committed clear 14 | error or made an unjust decision or point out there was a change in controlling law. See generally 15 | Mot. Instead, petitioner reasserts the facts of his case and claims. But “[a] party seeking 16 | reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the [cJourt's decision, and 17 | recapitulation of that which was already considered by the [c]ourt in rendering its decision.” 18 | United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (citations 19 | and quotations omitted). 20 The court denies the motion for reconsideration. 21 This order resolves ECF No. 18. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: April 10, 2023. [\ (] 24 l ti / { q_/ 35 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45