Opinion
1:13-cv-00958 GSA HC
2013-09-15
JOSHUA ROBERT DALY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, USP ATWATER, et al., Respondents.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. #9]
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
On August 2, 2013, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment was entered the same date. On August 26, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b).
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
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.
Petitioner's arguments do not merit reconsideration of the dismissal. As discussed in the Court's order, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the validity of his detention. He fails to show that he has never had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims, and his claims do not qualify under the savings clause since they are not claims of actual innocence.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE