(HC) Taylor v. District Attorney Office ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT TAYLOR, No. 2:23-cv-00460-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, (Doc. Nos. 21, 22) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Robert Taylor is a detainee in county jail proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 24, 2024, the undersigned issued an order adopting the assigned magistrate 21 judge’s findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) and dismissing this action due to 22 petitioner’s failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in his operative second 23 amended petition. (Doc. No. 19.) Specifically, the court explained that because petitioner’s state 24 criminal conviction has not yet become final, he has failed to exhaust his habeas claims by first 25 presenting them to the highest state court prior to seeking federal habeas relief as required. (Id.) 26 On February 1, 2024, petitioner filed a third amended habeas petition despite not having 27 first obtained leave from the court to do so. (Doc. No. 21.) The next day, on February 2, 2024, 28 petitioner filed a “response” to the court’s January 24, 2023 order dismissing this case. (Doc. No. 1 22.) The court will construe petitioner’s response, in connection with his proposed third amended 2 petition, as a motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 24, 2024 order. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 4 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 5 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 6 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 7 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 9 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 10 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 11 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 12 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 13 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 14 original). 15 Here, in the proposed third amended petition, petitioner has filled in the “date of judgment 16 of conviction”—a category that had been left blank in petitioner’s second amended petition— 17 with the date of January 25, 2024, suggesting that this new conviction date serves as a basis for 18 the court to reconsider its order. (Doc. No. 21 at 1.) In petitioner’s “response,” he states “I was 19 convicted on January 25, 2024 and so tell [sic] me I can’t refile I think is bias [sic] and unfair. 20 I’ve already filed a direct appeal with courts. I guess I’ll file an appeal to the supreme courts.” 21 (Doc. No. 22 at 1.) Although petitioner has now specified his date of judgment of conviction, that 22 newly added information is not sufficient to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief 23 because, as petitioner states in his proposed third amended petition, his direct appeal from his 24 conviction is “still pending” in the state courts (Doc. No. 21 at 2.) Further, petitioner states “n/a” 25 in response to the form petition’s questions regarding whether his appeal was pursued through the 26 higher state courts. (Id.) A federal habeas petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement only by 27 providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before 28 ///// 1 | presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. 2 | Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). 3 Petitioner simply has provided no basis under Rule 60(b) to support reconsideration of the 4 | court’s order dismissing his petition. Accordingly, 5 1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 21, 22) is denied; and 6 2. This case shall remain closed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ February 9, 2024 Dal A. 2, sxe 9 DALE A. DROZD 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28