1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL FRIES, Case No. 1:20-cv-01517-AWI-JLT (HC) 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

9 v. (Doc. No. 10) 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, et al., 11 Respondents. 12

13 Petitioner Michael Fries is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition 14 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1. On November 5, 2020, the 15 magistrate judge assigned to the case issued Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the 16 petition. Doc. No. 5. On November 12, 2020 and December 9, 2020, Petitioner filed objections 17 to the Findings and Recommendation. Doc. Nos. 6, 7. The Court adopted the Findings and 18 Recommendation on January 11, 2021. Doc. No. 8. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s 19 motion for reconsideration, filed on January 28, 2021. Doc. No. 10. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the 21 district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment 22 on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 23 evidence . . . ; (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 24 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged . . . ; or (6) any 25 other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be 26 made within a reasonable time, in any event “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment 27 or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Moreover, when filing a motion 28 for reconsideration, Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show the en nnn ee nnn nn nen nn nnn EI I EE

1 | “new or different facts or circumstances [] claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 2 | upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 3 | committed to the discretion of the trial court. Am. Ironworkers & Erectors, Inc. v. N.A. Constr. 4 | Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001). 5 The Court dismissed Petitioner’s petition for mandamus relief because it lacked 6 || jurisdiction to compel a state official to take or refrain from taking some action. See Doc. No. 5 7 | at 3-4. In his reconsideration motion, Petitioner asserts only that “[t]he issue is not one of g | detention but of conditions of confinement” and that he has a right to file a petition for writ of g || mandate in state court. Doc. No. 10 at 1. With nothing more, Petitioner fails to meet any of the 10 | grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). Petitioner also has not met 1] | the requirement under Local Rule 230) to show “new or different facts or circumstances [] 12 | claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other 13 | grounds exist for the motion.” In sum, the Court will deny Petitioner’s motion. 14 15 ORDER 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration U7 (Doc. No. 10)is DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ 59 | Dated: _February 23, 2021 7 Zz : 7 Chloé — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28