Hartman v. Medina County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Matthew James Hartman, Case No. 1:18-cv-2196

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

Medina County Sheriff’s Office, et al.

Respondents.

Petitioner Matthew James Hartman has filed a motion for reconsideration of my opinion dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 35). Rule 60(b) provides that, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party “seeking relief under Rule 60(b) bears the burden of establishing the grounds for such relief by clear and convincing evidence.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008). Hartman has not presented an appropriate basis under Rule 60(b) for reconsideration of my earlier decision. Instead, he merely argues I erred in rejecting his grounds for relief. (See Doc. No. 35). This argument is one suitable for appeal, not for a Rule 60 motion. Therefore, I deny his

motion. Further, I reaffirm my certification that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge