From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dixon v. Schultz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 10, 2006
1:04-CV-6621 REC LJO HC, [Doc. #8] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)

Opinion

1:04-CV-6621 REC LJO HC, [Doc. #8].

February 10, 2006


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On January 11, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended the petition be dismissed and judgment be entered. On February 23, 2005, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On March 8, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b).

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (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.

Petitioner fails to meet this standard. Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner's contention that the miscitation of Apprendi v. New Jersey in the Order adopting the findings and recommendation warrants reconsideration is without merit. Apprendi, which was decided in June 2000, is not retroactive on collateral review. Petitioner's arguments present no basis for relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dixon v. Schultz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 10, 2006
1:04-CV-6621 REC LJO HC, [Doc. #8] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Dixon v. Schultz

Case Details

Full title:JULIUS DARNELL DIXON, Petitioner, v. PAUL M. SCHULTZ, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2006

Citations

1:04-CV-6621 REC LJO HC, [Doc. #8] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)