# (HC) Rouser v. Unknown

> District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019099

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 12, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019099

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:18-cv-1358-JAM-EFB P
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER
14 UNKNOWN,
15 Respondent.
16
17 On December 19, 2018, this habeas action was dismissed without prejudice to the filing of
18 a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 14. Judgment was duly entered.
19 ECF No. 15. On April 15, 2020, petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to
20 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 16.
21 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration of a final judgment where one of more of the
22 following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
23 discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered within
24 twenty-eight days of entry of judgment; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of an
25 opposing party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other
26 reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a
27 “reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the
28 judgment of order or the date of the proceedings.” Fed. R. Civ. P 60(c)(1).
1 Because petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion more than a year after the entry of
2 judgment, he must demonstrate he is entitled to relief for reasons (4), (5), and/or (6). Petitioner,
3 however, has not shown he is entitled to relief from judgment for any of the reasons enumerated
4 in Rule 60(b). Petitioner argues that the court erred in dismissing his petition, which challenged
5 the results of a prison rules violation report, because on April 2, 2020, the Board of Parole
6 Hearings relied upon that disciplinary report to deny him parole for ten years. ECF No. 16.
7 Even so, petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary action does not fall within the “core of habeas
8 corpus.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). As stated in the findings and
9 recommendations underlying the order of dismissal (ECF No. 12), the petition does not present a
10 basis for habeas jurisdiction because even if the disciplinary report were expunged from
11 petitioner’s record, it would not necessarily result in petitioner’s speedier release. See id.
12 (observing that a rules violation is just one of many factors a parole board may consider in
13 determining a prisoner’s suitability for parole).
14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from
15 judgment (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.
16
DATED: May 11, 2020
17
/s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____
18
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10019099. Public record. Not legal advice.