Opinion
1:18-cv-2196
01-05-2024
Matthew James Hartman, Petitioner, v. Medina County Sheriff's Office, et al. Respondents.
ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.