1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DANIEL ROGER HOOD, 15cv1564-CAB-DHB

11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION 12 v. PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b) [Doc. No. 71] 13 DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 14 AND REHABILITATION, 15 Respondent. 16

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.,

, 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 by 27 the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) and 28 1 || other reason justifying relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Further, the Rule provides that a 2 || motion brought under it “must be made within a reasonable time — and for reasons (1), 3 and (3) no more than a year after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the 4 || proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). 5 B. Discussion. 6 Here, the petition was denied, and judgment was entered accordingly, on February 7 || 13, 2017. [Doc. Nos. 52 and 53.] This motion -- seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), 8 || and (3) — was filed two and a half years later. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 60(c), the 9 || motion is untimely. 10 C. Conclusion. 11 For the reason set forth above, the motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) is DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: October 4, 2019 € □ 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28