1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE PRICE,

12 Petitioner, No. 2:24-cv-03418-TLN-CKD

13 14 v. ORDER THE PEOPLE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Eugene Price’s (“Petitioner”) “objections” to 19 the assigned magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in this closed habeas action. (ECF 20 No. 15.) The Court construes this request as a motion to reconsider its prior order. For the 21 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 22 Petitioner filed this habeas action on December 9, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On February 3, 23 2025, the assigned magistrate judge made findings and recommendations to summarily dismiss 24 the petition because Petitioner was complaining about the representation of his then-current 25 counsel on direct appeal rather than asserting any grounds upon which the court could grant 26 habeas relief. (ECF No. 8 at 1–2.) The findings and recommendations contained notice that any 27 objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 2.) The undersigned adopted these 28 1 findings and recommendations in full and judgment was entered on March 31, 2025. (ECF Nos. 2 12, 13.) In so doing, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus and declined to issue 3 the certificate of appealability referenced in

. (ECF No. 12.) On August 12, 4 2025, Petitioner filed the instant motion asking for his case to be reinstated. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) 5 Petitioner claimed his mail had been delayed because he was transferred from High Desert State 6 Prison to Los Angeles County (Lancaster) and the prison staff knew about his lawsuit. (Id.) 7 Additionally, Petitioner noted his prior counsel had been removed and he had been appointed new 8 counsel. (Id.) 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) allows a district court to relieve a party 10 from a final judgment or order for “any [] reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 11 The moving party must demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances justifying the reopening of a 12 final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby,

(2005). However, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to 13 be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only 14 where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or 15 correct an erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. Castro,

(9th Cir. 2008) (internal 16 citation omitted). The moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 17 control[.]”

Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires a motion for reconsideration to state, 18 “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 19 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and “why the facts or 20 circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). 21 Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b). 22 Petitioner’s case was dismissed because his complaints about representation were not grounds 23 upon which the Court could grant habeas relief. As previously explained, this is an improper 24 habeas petition. The fact Petitioner received new counsel or the fact he was transferred does not 25 justify reopening this case under these circumstances. 26 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. Petitioner is advised that 27 other documents filed by him in this case since the closing date will be disregarded and no 28 additional orders will issue. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Date: October 24, 2025 7, 3 TROY L. NUNLEY 4 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28