Smith v. Williams et al
Filing
55
ORDER Denying 50 Petitioner's Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order and Denying 52 Petitioners' Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 02/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)
<![CDATA[
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
WILLIE J. SMITH, JR.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
2:08-cv-1552-GMN-VCF
ORDER
9
10
This closed action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11
§ 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. On July 23, 2012, this Court entered an order analyzing the
12
merits of this case and denying the habeas petition. (ECF No. 48). Judgment entered on July 23,
13
2012. (ECF No. 49). Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 50) and a motion
14
for relief from judgment (ECF No. 52). Respondents oppose both motions. (ECF Nos. 51 & 53).
15
Where a ruling has resulted in final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration may be
16
construed either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17
59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J
18
Multnomah County v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1236
19
(1994). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for
20
the following reasons:
21
22
23
24
25
26
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
1
Motions to reconsider are generally left to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick
2
Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In order to succeed on a motion to reconsider,
3
a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its
4
prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.
5
1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987).
6
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any “motion to alter or
7
amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Furthermore, a
8
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,
9
unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
10
there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir.
11
2001), quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal courts have
12
determined that there are four grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the motion is necessary
13
to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the moving party
14
presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent
15
manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Turner v. Burlington
16
Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003).
17
In the instant case, this Court denied the federal habeas petition by order filed July 23, 2012.
18
(ECF No. 48). In the motion for reconsideration and motion for relief from judgment, petitioner
19
merely reargues issues previously decided by this Court. (ECF Nos. 50 & 52). To the extent that
20
petitioner seeks to raise new facts, federal claims heard on the merits in the state court cannot be
21
augmented with new evidence in federal court. Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011). In
22
neither of the motions has petitioner identified any mistake, intervening change in controlling law, or
23
other factor that would require altering or vacating the judgment in this case. Petitioner has not
24
shown that manifest injustice resulted from the denial of his petition. Petitioner has failed to make
25
an adequate showing under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) to justify granting his motion for
26
reconsideration and his motion for relief from judgment.
2
1
2
3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 50)
and motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 52) are DENIED.
Dated this 19th day of February, 2013.
4
5
6
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
