Williams v. Walker et al
Filing
94
ORDER: (1) Denying Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 93 ), and (2) Declining to Issue a Certificate of Appealability. The Court Denies Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The denial is without prejudice t o Petitioner to file a second or successive petition in this Court if he obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court Declines to issue a certificate of appealability with respect to the denial of Petitioners Rule 60(b) Motion. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 4/5/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu) (sjt).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BENNY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
12
13
Civil No. 07cv0959-BTM (AJB)
vs.
(1) DENYING RULE 60(b)
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT, and
14
15
16
ORDER:
JEFF MACOMBER, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.
(2) DECLINING TO ISSUE A
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
17
18
On November 19, 2009, this Court entered judgment denying Petitioner’s First
19
Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and
20
issuing a Certificate of Appealability. (ECF Nos. 70-71.) The First Amended Petition
21
contained eight claims, six of which challenged the use of Petitioner’s two prior felony
22
convictions (a 1978 California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and a 1974
23
Oregon conviction for robbery), to enhance his sentence under California’s Three Strikes
24
law. (ECF No. 37 at 15-26, 29-34.) Petitioner appealed, and on December 8, 2011, the
25
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s judgment. (ECF No. 90.) On
26
August 27, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s request for
27
authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition, noting that all claims
28
presented in his application had been presented in his prior habeas petition filed in this
-1-
07cv0959
1
Court. (ECF No. 91.) On February 1, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for relief
2
from judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), arguing that the prosecutor in his state
3
criminal case “committed intrinsic and extrinsic fraud” by filing sentence enhancement
4
allegations which erroneously alleged that his prior felony convictions constituted
5
“strikes” under California’s Three Strikes law, and that the sentencing court abused its
6
discretion and violated state law by using the prior convictions to enhance his sentence.
7
(ECF No. 93.)
8
I.
9
10
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) entitles the moving party to relief from
judgment based on:
11
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
12
(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);
13
14
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
15
(4) the judgment is void;
16
17
(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
18
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
19
Petitioner has requested relief only under Rule 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(6) (see ECF No.
20
93 at 2), and there appears to be no basis for relief from judgment under any other
21
provision of Rule 60(b). Petitioner contends that relief is justified under Rule 60(b)(3)
22
because the prosecutor in his state criminal proceedings “in representation of the state
23
committed intrinsic or extrinsic [fraud], misrepresentation, and other misconduct when
24
she used her prosecutorial powers to file sentence enhancement allegations alleging
25
Petitioner’s prior felony conviction[s] were serious and violent felonies within the
26
meaning of” California’s Three Strikes law, because they are not serious or violent
27
felonies. (Id. at 4-5.) He argues that his prior California felony conviction for assault
28
with a deadly weapon is not a serious or violent felony under California law, and should
-2-
or
extrinsic),
07cv0959
1
not have been alleged as such by the prosecutor or used to enhance his sentence. (Id. at
2
7-9.) Petitioner also contends relief is justified under Rule 60(b)(6) because his prior
3
Oregon felony conviction for robbery is not a serious or violent felony conviction within
4
the meaning of California’s Three Strikes law, and it was an abuse of discretion for the
5
trial court to use it to enhance his sentence. (Id. at 9-16.)
6
This Court must first determine whether Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is in effect
7
a second or successive habeas petition. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32
8
(2005). A Rule 60(b) motion constitutes a second or successive habeas petition when
9
it advances a new ground for relief or “attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of
10
a claim on the merits.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 (italics in original); id. at 532 n.4
11
(explaining that “on the merits” in that context refers to an assertion that the court’s
12
resolution of a previous claim was in error, as opposed to an argument, for example, that
13
the court erred in ruling that a merits determination was not possible due to a procedural
14
ground).
15
If Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is the equivalent of a second or successive
16
petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion absent a certificate from the
17
Ninth Circuit authorizing the filing of the petition. United States v. Washington, 653
18
F.3d 1057, 1065 (9th Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). The Court must treat a Rule
19
60(b) motion as a second or successive petition if it merely attempts to relitigate this
20
Court’s determination on the merits of the claims. See Washington, 653 F.3d at 1063
21
(providing as examples of a Rule 60(b) motion which must be treated as a successive
22
petition a motion asserting that owing to “excusable neglect” the movant’s habeas
23
petition had omitted a claim of constitutional error, a motion seeking to add a new
24
ground for relief, and a motion attacking the court’s prior resolution of a claim on the
25
merits), citing Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530-32.
26
In this Court’s Order denying the First Amended Petition, the Court denied on the
27
merits Petitioner’s claims that his federal Constitutional rights were violated by the
28
enhancement of his current sentence with his prior California felony conviction for
-3-
07cv0959
1
assault with a deadly weapon and his prior Oregon felony conviction for robbery. (ECF
2
No. 70 at 11-14.) In affirming this Court’s judgment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
3
also addressed and rejected those claims on their merits. (ECF No. 90 at 4-7.) In his
4
instant Rule 60(b) Motion, Petitioner once again attempts to challenge the use of his
5
prior convictions to enhance his sentence.
6
It is clear that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion merely seeks to relitigate claims
7
presented in the First Amended Petition which were denied on the merits by this Court
8
and affirmed on appeal. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Rule 60(b) motion
9
because Petitioner has not received permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or
10
successive petition in this Court. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530-32; Washington, 653 F.3d
11
at 1063.
12
II.
Conclusion and Order
13
The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment for
14
the reasons set forth above. The denial is without prejudice to Petitioner to file a second
15
or successive petition in this Court if he obtains permission from the Ninth Circuit Court
16
of Appeals. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability with respect
17
to the denial of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 5, 2016
_________________________________________
HON. BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
07cv0959
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?