Baker v. Davey

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/29/15 denying 7 Motion to vacate the judgment. Petitioner is reminded that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ROBERT GUY BAKER,

11

No. 2:15-cv-793-EFB P

Petitioner,

12

v.

13

DAVE DAVEY,

14

ORDER

Respondent.

15
16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, sought a writ of habeas corpus

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 His petition was dismissed as second or successive and judgment

18

was duly entered. ECF Nos. 5, 6. He now moves to vacate the judgment. ECF No. 7.

19

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court (1) is presented with newly discovered

20

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

21

an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

22

(9th Cir. 1993). Additionally, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as

23

follows:

24
25

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,

26
27
28

1

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636;
see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
1

1
2
3
4

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

5
6

Petitioner argues that if he amends his petition to delete ground three of the original

7

petition, his petition will no longer be second or successive. The argument lacks merit. Claims

8

one and two of the proposed amended petition still challenge the same judgment of conviction

9

that petitioner challenged in an earlier action. Since petitioner continues to challenge the same

10

judgment that he previously challenged in this court, and which was adjudicated on the merits, the

11

petition remains second or successive. Thus, petitioner has not shown that circumstances exist to

12

justify the requested relief.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment

14

(ECF No. 7) is denied. Petitioner is hereby reminded that the court will not respond to future

15

filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal

16

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

17

DATED: June 29, 2015.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2