Hood
Hood v. Director of the California Department of Corrections
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DANIEL ROGER HOOD, 15cv1564-CAB-DHB
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
v. PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b) [Doc. No. 71] DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION,
15 Respondent.
17 On September 26, 2019, Petitioner Daniel Roger Hood filed a Motion Pursuant to 18 Rule 60(b). [Doc. No. 71.] In the motion, Petitioner states that he is seeking relief 19 pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)(2)(3). [Doc. No. 71 at 1.] 20 A. Legal Standard. 21 Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing 22 of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 23 (9th Cir. 1994). The Rule identifies six permissible grounds for relief from a final 24 judgment, order, or proceeding, namely: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 25 excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 26 not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud…