Frazier v. Montgomery
Filing
49
ORDER Denying Petitioner's 48 Motion to Reopen Case signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 09/11/2017. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SEMAJ LEON FRAZIER,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
16
v.
No. 1:14-cv-01146-LJO-JLT (HC)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
(Doc. 48)
W. L. MONTGOMERY,
Respondent.
17
18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of
19
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 8, 2016, the Court denied the petition
20
for writ of habeas corpus and entered judgment, thereby terminating the case.
21
22
23
24
On September 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the case. (Doc. 48.) He claims
he is actually innocent and sets forth seven additional grounds for relief.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the
25
district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment
26
on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
27
evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
28
been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
1
1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time, in any
2
event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.” Id.
3
Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to
4
show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
5
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to
6
reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825
7
F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To
8
succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to
9
reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp.
10
656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.
11
1987).
12
Here, petitioner fails to meet the requirements for granting a motion for reconsideration:
13
He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has certainly not
14
shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the
15
judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, petitioner has not presented any other reasons
16
justifying relief from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, petitioner has not
17
shown “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
18
shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).
19
Petitioner argues that he is actually innocent and therefore he is not procedurally barred
20
from presenting his claims. Petitioner is advised that his initial petition was not procedurally
21
defaulted; it was denied on the merits. In addition, he does not present a claim of actual
22
innocence. Instead, he presents seven new grounds for relief including claims based on failure to
23
disclose favorable evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct. The
24
Court finds that Petitioner is attempting to bring a successive petition for writ of habeas corpus.
25
A federal court must dismiss a second or successive petition that raises the same grounds
26
as a prior petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The court must also dismiss a second or successive
27
petition raising a new ground unless the petitioner can show that 1) the claim rests on a new,
28
retroactive, constitutional right or 2) the factual basis of the claim was not previously
2
1
discoverable through due diligence, and these new facts establish by clear and convincing
2
evidence that but for the constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
3
applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)-(B). However, it is not the
4
district court that decides whether a second or successive petition meets these requirements.
5
Section 2244 (b)(3)(A) provides: "Before a second or successive application permitted by
6
this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of
7
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." In other words,
8
Petitioner must obtain leave from the Ninth Circuit before he can file a second or successive
9
petition in district court. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 656-657 (1996). This Court must
10
dismiss any second or successive petition unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave
11
to file the petition because a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a second or
12
successive petition. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d
13
1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001).
14
Because the current petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the provisions of the
15
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) apply to Petitioner's current
16
petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997). Petitioner makes no showing that he has
17
obtained prior leave from the Ninth Circuit to file his successive petition attacking the conviction.
18
That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's renewed application for relief
19
from that conviction under Section 2254 and must dismiss the petition. See Greenawalt, 105 F.3d
20
at 1277; Nunez, 96 F.3d at 991.
21
22
23
ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.
48) is DENIED.
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
September 11, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?