-RBB Shell v. Terhune, et al
Filing
48
ORDER Construing Rule 60(b) Motion as a Successive § 2254 Petition and Denying the 47 Motion. A certificate of applicability is Denied. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/3/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
EDWARD VICTOR SHELL,
No. 00-cv-1065-BTM-RBB
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER CONSTRUING RULE
60(b) MOTION AS A
SUCCESSIVE § 2254
PETITION AND DENYING THE
MOTION
13
14
15
RICK HILL, as Warden,
Respondent.
16
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on
17 March 9, 2001 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docs. 16, 19, 20.) The Ninth
18
Circuit affirmed on September 19, 2002. (Doc. 30.) In an Order dated
19
January 31, 2003, the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s motion to file a late
20
petition for rehearing, recalled the mandate, and denied Petitioner’s petition
21
for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. (Doc. 34.) The mandate was
22
reissued and the appeal was closed. (Id.) About eight years later, on
23
December 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment
24
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), which this Court construed as a successive
25
habeas corpus petition and denied it on December 16, 2010. (Doc. 38.) On
26
January 4, 2011, this Court denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of
27
appealability. (Doc. 40.) On May 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit also denied a
28
certificate of appealability. (Doc. 42.) In June 2013, Petitioner again filed a
1
1
request for a certificate of appealability with the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 43),
2
which was denied as duplicative on September 9, 2013 (Doc. 45). On
3
September 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for leave
4
to file a successive § 2254 petition and further ordered, pursuant to 28
5
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), that “No petition for rehearing or motion for
6
consideration shall be filed or entertained in this case.” (Doc. 46.)
7
Petitioner has nonetheless filed another motion for relief pursuant to
8
Rule 60(b)(6). (Doc. 47.) “Rule 60(b)(6) . . . permits reopening when the
9
movant shows ‘any . . . reason justifying relief from the operation of the
10
judgement’ other than the more specific circumstances set out in Rules
11
60(b)(1)-(5).” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005). A Rule 60(b)
12
motion may not, however, be used to circumvent the rules for filing
13
successive petitions. Id. at 531. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that a
14
Rule 60(b) motion filed after the denial of a habeas corpus petition on the
15
merits that seeks to add new grounds for relief is a successive petition under
16
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). Id. Petitioner has not obtained the permission of the
17
Court of Appeals to file a successive petition as required by 28 U.S.C. §
18
2244. As stated in the December 16, 2010 and September 26, 2013 orders,
19
the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s motion. The Court
20
accordingly construes the motion as a successive § 2254 petition and
21
DENIES the motion. A certificate of applicability is DENIED.
22
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 3, 2014
__________________________
Barry Ted Moskowitz
Chief United States District Judge
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?