Robben v. Dagostini

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/12/2017 GRANTING petitioner's 8 motion for reconsideration; upon reconsideration, the 1/19/2017 order 6 is AFFIRMED; petitioner's request that the court order any state court to expedite his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of habeas corpus jurisdiction; and the Clerk shall change petitioner's mailing address to Sacramento County Jail. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TODD ROBBEN,

12
13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2901 KJN P
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

JOHN D’AGOSTINI,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18

I. Introduction
Petitioner is proceeding without counsel. He consented to proceed before the undersigned

19

for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). On January 19, 2017, this action was dismissed

20

because petitioner’s criminal appeal was pending, requiring this court to abstain under Younger v.

21

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). On February 2, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for

22

reconsideration; petitioner argues that his appeal will be “further delayed or even dismissed since

23

the superior court clerk (or appointed counsel) failed to file the notice of appeal and the related

24

evidence.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.) Petitioner states that his newly-appointed counsel Alison Cohen is

25

attempting to rectify this issue, but the outcome is uncertain. Petitioner argues that the delays are

26

caused by the state, not petitioner, who has suffered long enough in jail on allegedly false

27

charges. (ECF No. 8 at 2.) Petitioner asks that if his request is denied, the court “send [him his]

28

right to appeal. (ECF No. 8 at 2.)

1

Petitioner appends two documents to his motion. First, in a January 24, 2017 letter

2

addressed to petitioner from Cohen, counsel provided petitioner with “copies of all of the

3

documents in [counsel’s] possession that [petitioner] [has] submitted to the court and they have

4

marked ‘Received’ and then forwarded to [counsel’s] office.” (ECF No. 8 at 3.) Counsel noted

5

that the last two, dated 9/29/16 and 10/24/16 were not marked received; because counsel received

6

these documents from the court, counsel could not explain why the documents were not stamped.

7

(Id.) Counsel then stated:

8

It occurred to me that it may be unclear to the Placer clerks’ office
whether they should file the documents because they are outside the
appeal and Placer is technically only handling the appeal. It may
help if I file a motion for clarification with the Placer County
Appellate Division and ask for a court order that states that the
Placer County Clerk should file all documents that you submit, in
light of the El Dorado County Bench being recused.

9
10
11
12

I left a message with the El Dorado County Appellate Clerk asking
if there was a second Notice of Appeal filed that addressed the final
judgment.

13
14

(ECF No. 8 at 3.) This letter references El Dorado County Superior Court Case No. S16CRM

15

0096. (Id.)
Second, petitioner provided a copy of a motion styled, “motion to augment the record on

16
17

appeal; motion to extend briefing schedule; request for bail/release on appeal.” (ECF No. 8 at 4.)

18

This motion is dated December 30, 2016, signed by Cohen, and bears the Placer County Superior

19

Court caption, but references Case No. S16CRM 0096, the case initially filed in El Dorado

20

County Superior Court. The motion does not bear any court’s file-stamp. (ECF No. 8 at 4.) In

21

the motion, counsel requested that the court augment the record with particular exhibits, to extend

22

the briefing schedule so that counsel could review the exhibits, to stay execution of the sentence

23

and release petitioner on his own recognizance.

24

As set forth below, the motion for reconsideration, is granted, and upon reconsideration,

25

the motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is

26

denied, and, to the extent petitioner asks the court to order any state court to expedite his appeal,

27

such request is dismissed for lack of habeas jurisdiction.

28

////
2

1

II. Background

2

Petitioner was convicted in July of 2016, for driving when privilege suspended or revoked

3

for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; driving with knowledge of such suspension,

4

revocation or restriction; and displaying registration or identification card not issued for vehicle

5

with intent to avoid compliance with registration requirements. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) He was

6

sentenced on July 11, 2016 to a jail term of one and a half years. (Id.) Petitioner confirms he

7

filed an appeal. (ECF No. at 1.)

8
9

Petitioner claims that he has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California
Supreme Court, but that the petition remained pending as of December 5, 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)

10

The California Supreme Court website reflects that the petition was denied on January 11, 2017.

11

Robben (Todd) on Habeas Corpus, Case No. S238441 (Cal. S. Ct.).1

12

Petitioner raises multiple claims for relief in the instant petition.

13

On March 1, 2017, petitioner filed a notice of change of address, reflecting his release

14

from jail on March 6, 2017. (ECF No. 9.) However, in other cases filed by petitioner, he filed a

15

notice of change of address reflecting he was retained in jail, and ultimately transferred to the

16

Sacramento County Jail, where he remains housed at this time. See, e.g., Robben v. D’Agostini,

17

No. 2:16-cv-2742 CMK (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 14.)

18

III. Motion for Reconsideration
“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented
with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St.
Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion
for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

19
20
21
22
23
24

Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

25

“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision,

26
27
28

1

The court takes judicial notice of petitioner's records in the state appellate courts, available at
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002)
(courts may take judicial notice of relevant state court records in federal habeas proceedings).
3

1

and recapitulation” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision.

2

United States. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Courts

3

construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), providing for the alteration or amendment of a

4

judgment, have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful

5

party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which might have

6

been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009

7

(C.D. Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v.

8

National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings

9

“reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial

10

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009. Additionally, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules,

11

when filing a motion for reconsideration, a party must show what “new or different facts or

12

circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or

13

what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j).

14

IV. Rule 60(b)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Rule 60(b) provides as follows:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or
Proceeding. 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, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);

22

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

23

(4) the judgment is void;

24
25

(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

26

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent

28

manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances. . .” exist. Harvest
4

1

v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). The

2

moving party “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control. . . .” Id.

3

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

V. Discussion

5
6

In his motion, petitioner now claims that his appeal “will be further delayed or even
dismissed.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.)

7

A. Appeal Delay

8

In his first claim, petitioner contends his appeal has been delayed by the state in violation

9

of his due process rights. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Reading this claim in conjunction with his motion

10

for reconsideration, it appears that petitioner asks this court to compel a California court to

11

expedite his appeal.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit found that habeas
jurisdiction is absent in this context:
In two recent cases, Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S. Ct.
1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), and Skinner v. Switzer, –––U.S. –––
–, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011), the Court has made
clear that an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the proper
course for a constitutional claim such as the one that Petitioner
originally filed here. Those decisions distinguish between claims
that necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, which must be
brought in the context of a habeas petition, and claims for
constitutional violations that do not necessarily spell speedier
release and thus do not lie at the core of habeas corpus, which may
be brought, if at all, under § 1983. Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1298-99
& n. 13.11
Under Skinner in particular, a prisoner, like Petitioner, who wants
to compel the processing of an appeal to which state law entitles
him, may not file a habeas petition to obtain that result. A due
process claim of that sort does not “necessarily imply the invalidity
of [a] conviction.” Id. at 1298 (emphasis added). In fact, it says
nothing about the validity of the conviction because it raises an
issue of process, not substance. Neither does the claim “necessarily
spell speedier release,” id. at 1299 n. 13 (emphasis added), because,
as happened here, the state court might affirm the prisoner’s
conviction and sentence, leaving him in custody. We therefore
conclude that a request for an order directing a state court to hasten
its consideration of an appeal belongs in a § 1983 complaint, not a
habeas petition.[FN 3]
Because we lack jurisdiction over Petitioner’s first claim, we
dismiss it.
5

1

Blair, 645 F.3d at 1157-58.2

2

Here, to the extent petitioner seeks a court order expediting his appeal in state court, such

3

request must be dismissed because this court lacks habeas jurisdiction over such claim.

4

Petitioner acknowledges that he filed a civil rights complaint against the El Dorado County

5

Superior Court in connection therewith (ECF No. 8 at 1).

6

B. Younger Abstention

7

Despite petitioner’s concern as to the status of his pending appeal in state court, both his

8

filings, as well as the documents signed by his new counsel Cohen, confirm that his direct appeal

9

remains pending. Petitioner has failed to show new or extraordinary circumstances that warrant

10

intervention by this court. Thus, for the reasons set forth in the January 19, 2017 order, this court

11

must abstain from addressing the instant petition. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971).

12

When an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, petitioner must await the outcome of

13

his direct appeal before his state remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in

14

the federal writ of habeas corpus has been finally resolved in the state courts. Sherwood v.

15

Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Schnepp v. State of Or., 333 F.2d 288 (9th

16

Cir. 1964) (per curiam).

17

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is granted;

19

2. Upon reconsideration, the January 19, 2017 order (ECF No. 6) is affirmed;

20

3. Petitioner’s request that the court order any state court to expedite his appeal is

21

dismissed for lack of habeas corpus jurisdiction; and

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

2

27

It also appears that an argument that delay in resolving an appeal from a state court conviction
violates due process is precluded by binding circuit precedent. Hayes v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500,
523 (9th Cir. 2011).

28
6

1

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change petitioner’s mailing address to: Todd

2

Robben, #5073288, Sacramento County Main Jail, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

3

Dated: June 12, 2017

4
5
6

robb2901.60b

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7