(HC) Scott v. Bird

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS CHARLES SCOTT, No. 2:23-cv-00936-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 LANDON BIRD, (Doc. Nos. 29, 33) 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner Thomas Charles Scott is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 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 July 17, 2024, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations issued by 21 the assigned magistrate judge (Doc. No. 22) and dismissed petitioner’s federal habeas petition 22 without prejudice. (Doc. No. 27 at 2–3.) Judgment was entered on that same day. (Doc. No. 28.) 23 On August 15, 2024, petitioner appealed the court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 24 (Doc. No. 30.) On August 9, 2024, petitioner filed the pending motion for reconsideration of the 25 court’s order dismissing his petition. (Doc. No. 29). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 27 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 28 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 1 evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 2 been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any 4 event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id. 5 Reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy “to be used sparingly in the 6 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 7 229 F. 3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 8 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). In seeking reconsideration 9 under Rule 60, the moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 10 control.” Harvest, 531 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 12 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 13 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 14 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 15 raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 16 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 17 original). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires, in relevant part, that a movant show “what new or 18 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown” 19 previously, “what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were 20 not shown” at the time the substance of the order which is objected to was considered. 21 Here, in his motion for reconsideration, petitioner argues that the court did not conduct a 22 proper review of this case because “the judge neglected—for unexplained reasons—to take 23 judicial notice” of three state court records, which petitioner contends demonstrate that he 24 exhausted his state court remedies. (Doc. No. 29.) Petitioner’s argument is misplaced, however, 25 because his federal habeas petition was not dismissed due to a failure to exhaust habeas claims by 26 first presenting them to the highest state court prior to seeking federal habeas relief. Rather, as 27 respondent had argued in his motion to dismiss petitioner’s federal habeas petition and as the 28 magistrate judge explained in the findings and recommendations that were adopted by the 1 | undersigned, petitioner’s underlying state criminal proceedings were still pending when he filed 2 | the federal habeas petition initiating this action, and thus application of the Younger abstention 3 | doctrine required dismissal of this federal habeas action without prejudice. (Doc. Nos. 22, 27) 4 | (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Petitioner’s motion simply does not identify any 5 | basis under Rule 60(b) upon which this court should reconsider its July 17, 2024 order dismissing 6 | this action. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 29) is denied; 9 2. Petitioner’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 33) is denied 10 as having been rendered moot by this order; and 11 3. This case shall remain closed. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ August 26, 2024 Da A. 2, ye 14 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28