Klein v. State of California, The et al

Filing 69

ORDER Denying 68 Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 12/10/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

STEVEN KLEIN,

Case No.: 17cv00380 JAH-PCL
Petitioner,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 68]

DEAN BORDERS,
Respondent.

14
15
16
17

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), a party may seek an

19

order setting aside a judgment based on fraud on the court. Petitioner argues Respondent

20

engaged in fraud by presenting a shorter version of the Mobile Video Audio Recording

21

System (“MVARS”) to the Court and not addressing his challenges to its authenticity.

22

Petitioner challenged the MVARS in his traverse. The Court determined Petitioner’s

23

allegations that the video was altered were groundless and overruled his objections to its

24

authenticity. See Order Adopting the magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and

25

Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at (Doc. No. 56) at 4.5 Petitioner’s current

26

27
5

28

Petitioner appealed the order and judgment and the Ninth Circuit denied his request for a certificate of
appealability upon finding Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

1
17cv00380 JAH-PCL

1

motion provides no additional facts demonstrating the MVARS was improperly

2

authenticated or that Respondent committed a fraud on the Court by attesting to its

3

authenticity.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner’s motion for relief from

5

judgment is DENIED.

6

DATED:

December 10, 2019

7

_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

27
28

right. See Doc. Nos. 60, 65. The Ninth Circuit later denied his motion for reconsideration and motion
for reconsideration en banc. See Doc. No. 66.

2
17cv00380 JAH-PCL