Williams v. Mayberg et al

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S THIRD MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 10/24/17. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 03-cv-05147-MMC

v.
STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, et al.,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
THIRD MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; DENYING
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
Re: Doc. Nos. 71, 72

14
15

On November 21, 2003, petitioner, a civil detainee confined at Atascadero State

16

Hospital pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6602, filed the above-

17

titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a

18

1991 state court conviction. On November 8, 2004, respondent’s motion to dismiss the

19

petition as untimely was granted, judgment was entered in respondent’s favor, and the

20

case was closed. This Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals thereafter denied

21

petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.

22

Subsequently, petitioner filed in district court, a motion for reconsideration

23

pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which was denied on April

24

27, 2007, after which ruling petitioner filed a request for a certificate of appealability,

25

which was denied by both this Court and the Court of Appeals.

26

Petitioner next filed a second motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b),

27

which motion was denied on August 3, 2010, after which both this Court and the Court of

28

Appeals again denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability.

1

Now pending before the Court is petitioner’s third motion for reconsideration of the

2

Court's 2004 order dismissing the petition as untimely. The instant motion was filed

3

October 6, 2017, and seeks relief pursuant to Rule 60(d)(1).

4

Petitioner’s reliance on Rule 60(d)(1) is misplaced. Rule 60(d)(1) provides that

5

Rule 60 "does not limit a court’s power to . . . entertain an independent action to relieve a

6

party from a judgment, order, or proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(1). Petitioner,

7

however, does not seek to file an independent action; rather he seeks relief from a prior

8

order issued in the same action he filed almost fourteen years ago.

9

Moreover, to the extent petitioner may be seeking leave to file an independent
action, it would be a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2),

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and the Ninth Circuit has denied petitioner’s request to file a second or successive

12

petition. (See Doc. No. 57 (Order of USCA, filed Aug. 11, 2010).) To the extent

13

petitioner may be seeking relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), he has not, as previously

14

discussed by the Court in ruling on the prior motions for reconsideration, presented a

15

basis for reconsideration of the dismissal. (See Order Den. Mot. for Recons., filed Apr.

16

27, 2007, at 2:11-3:5; Order Den. Pet'r's Second Mot. for Recons., filed Aug. 3, 2010, at

17

2:23-3:4.)

18

In connection with his motion for reconsideration, petitioner also has filed a motion

19

for appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in

20

habeas actions, see Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986), but,

21

pursuant to statute, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a habeas

22

petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require," see 18

23

U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), and such person is "financially unable to obtain adequate

24

representation,” see id. § 3006A(a). Here, petitioner’s claims have been adequately

25

presented in the petition and in his recent filings, and there is nothing before the Court to

26

suggest the interests of justice otherwise require the appointment of counsel.

27
28

Accordingly, petitioner's third motion for reconsideration and motion for
appointment of counsel are, in each instance, hereby DENIED.
2

1

Lastly, as petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable"

2

whether the Court was correct in its ruling, see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

3

(2000), a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2017

6
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3