McCarthy v. Frauenheim

Filing 54

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 53 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF FED. R. CIV. P. 60(B) MOTION. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2021)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)

Case 4:16-cv-06820-HSG Document 54 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES T MCCARTHY,

8

Petitioner,

9

v.

10

CRAIG KOENIG,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(B) MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 53

Respondent.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-06820-HSG

12
Petitioner, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility, filed this pro se action seeking a

13
14

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 13, 2020, the Court denied the

15

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and denied a certificate of appealability. Dkt. Nos. 45, 46.

16

Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, on March 29, 2021, the Ninth

17

Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability. Dkt. Nos. 47, 49. On April 20, 2021,

18

the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for reconsideration en banc. Dkt. No. 50. On May

19

17, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion seeking relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),

20

alleging mistake by this court and fraud on the court, misrepresentation, and misconduct by the

21

Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. Dkt. No. 51. On May 25, 2021, the Court denied

22

Petitioner’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in a reasoned order. Now pending before the Court is

23

Petitioner’s motion to appeal the Court’s May 25, 2021 denial. Dkt. No. 53.1

24

Petitioner appeals the Court’s May 25, 2021 denial on the grounds that the denial failed to

25

consider the impact fraud had on the state court proceedings; incorrectly concluded that Petitioner

26
27
28

1

A certificate of appealability likely is required for appeals from the denials of Rule 60(b) motions
for relief from judgment arising out of the denial of a habeas petition. United States v. Winkles,
795 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 2015). Although Winkles involves a § 2255 motion, it discussed
§ 2254 proceedings throughout.

Case 4:16-cv-06820-HSG Document 54 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 2

1

had not produced clear and convincing evidence of the fraud to justify relief; showed favoritism to

2

the prosecution; incorrectly concluded that defense attorney provided effective counsel within the

3

meaning of the Sixth Amendment; incorrectly concluded that the fraud claim was a re-statement of

4

the prosecutorial misconduct claim; and incorrectly concluded that the prosecutorial misconduct

5

claim was procedurally barred. Dkt. No. 53.
The essence of Petitioner’s fraud-related arguments is that the victim and the prosecution

7

committed fraud on the court in the underlying state court proceedings. While the Court has the

8

authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court, this applies

9

only where the fraud was not known at the time of settlement or entry of judgment. United States

10

v. Sierra Pacific Indus., 862 F.3d 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, the alleged fraud was known

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

to Petitioner at trial, and Petitioner has repeatedly raised this argument in both state court

12

proceedings and the instant action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) is therefore inapplicable here.
The Court has considered and denied Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of

13
14

counsel in both the order denying the habeas petition and the order denying the request for

15

reconsideration. The Court will not further address Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel

16

claims.

17

Petitioner has raised variations of these arguments throughout this actions. In denying the

18

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the request for reconsideration, the Court carefully

19

considered both the entire record and Petitioner’s arguments, and correctly applied the applicable

20

governing law. The Court did not err in denying either the petition for a writ of habeas corpus or

21

the request for reconsideration.

22

This order terminates Dkt. No. 53.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 7/27/2021
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
2