Ahumada v. Hedgpeth

Full title: VINCENTE M. AHUMADA, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 4, 2013

2:10-cv-3455-JAM-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)

Opinion

VINCENTE M. AHUMADA, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Respondent. No. 2:10-cv-3455-JAM-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 4, 2013

          ORDER

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 29, 2013, this court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was untimely filed. ECF No. 35. Judgment was entered on the same date and the case was closed. Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of the court's order granting respondent's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 37.

         Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

On 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.

         In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner essentially argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he has been transferred between prisons numerous times, does not speak English, and the prison law libraries do not provide legal material in Spanish. ECF No. 37. The court has already addressed and rejected petitioner's equitable tolling argument. See ECF Nos. 34, 35. As petitioner has failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting reconsideration, his motion is must be denied.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 37, is denied.