Joseph v. People of California

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge William H. Orrick denying 30 Motion. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and send a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES JOSEPH,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 21-cv-06745-WHO (PR)
ORDER DENYING SECOND
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
RICK HILL,
Respondent.

Dkt. No. 30

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Petitioner James Joseph has filed a second motion for reconsideration under Rule
60(b)(6) in which he again asks me to vacate the judgment in this habeas action and reenter it so that he can file a timely Notice of Appeal. (Dkt. No. 30.) He also asks for the
appointment of counsel. (Id.)
Under extraordinary circumstances, a district court has the authority under Rule
60(b)(6) to reenter judgment for purposes of restoring the right to appeal. Washington v.
Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). In Washington, there were extraordinary
circumstances: the petitioner was challenging his death sentence; he missed the filing

21

deadline by one day; and a court error “prevented Washington from seeking an extension

22

of time expressly allowed by the Rules.” Id. at 1089. Washington’s case “is in the narrow

23

band of cases for which relief from judgment is appropriate.” Id. at 1091.

24
25
26
27
28

Joseph’s case does not fall within that narrow band. His prior motion for
reconsideration was denied; the circumstances he presented were nothing like the
extraordinary circumstances in Washington. His allegations of a lack of access were
conclusory in that he provided no dates or any other details of his attempts to go to the law

1

library. (Dkt. No. 29 at 3.) His second motion still relies on conclusory allegations,

2

specifically that “access was sporadic at best” and that he had to rely on the “ducat”

3

system. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1.) Such a conclusory explanation for his two-month delay in

4

filing a Notice of Appeal does not meet the extraordinary circumstances standard

5

demanded by Rule 60(b). His motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Consequently, his

6

motion for the appointment of counsel also is DENIED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

I will not entertain any further motions for reconsideration (or any motion asking

8

me to restore Jospeh’s right to appeal or for the appointment of counsel) unless asked to do

9

so by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court has determined that the

10

Notice of Appeal is untimely and has ordered Joseph to show cause why his appeal should

11

not be dismissed:

12
13
14
15

Within 21 days after this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal
of this request for a certificate of appealability or show cause why it should
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not
timely filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c). If
appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after
service of appellant’s memorandum.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this
request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1.
(Joseph v. Hill, Court of Appeals Case No. 23-3133, Dkt. No. 5.)
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and send a copy of this Order to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2