Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05147/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05147-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 v.

STEPHEN MAYBERG, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 03-5147 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING AS

MOOT SECOND APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 40, 42)

On November 21, 2003, petitioner, a civil detainee confined at Atascadero State

Hospital pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 6602, filed the above-titled

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 1991 state

court conviction. On November 8, 2004, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as

untimely was granted, judgment was entered in respondent’s favor, and the case was closed. 

The Court of Appeals thereafter denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. 

Now before the Court is petitioner’s March 1, 2007 motion for reconsideration pursuant to

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that

by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the

adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other

reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d

1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Although couched in broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a

showing that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. Twentieth Century - Fox Film

Case 3:03-cv-05147-MMC Document 43 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Motions for reconsideration

should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a

means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Id. 

A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a “reasonable time,” and as to the

first three grounds for relief, no later than one year after the judgment was entered. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). As the present motion was made more than two years and three months

after entry of judgment, the grounds for relief in subsections (1) through (3) are not available

to petitioner. Additionally, the Court finds the filing of a motion almost two and a half years

after judgment, and nine months after the Supreme Court’s decision in House v. Bell, 126

S.Ct. 2064 (2006), upon which the motion is based, is not within “a reasonable time.”

Even if the motion were timely, however, petitioner has not presented a basis for

reconsideration of the dismissal, as petitioner fails to identify any voiding or satisfaction of

the judgment, or any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)-(6). As

noted, petitioner argues the judgment should be vacated based on House v. Bell, in which the

Supreme Court held a habeas petitioner may avoid a procedural bar based on a showing of

“actual innocence” as set forth in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 316 & n.16 (1995). See

House v. Bell, 126 S.Ct. at 2076-78. House, however, involved a procedural bar, and did not

address untimely petitions or AEDPA’s statute of limitations. More importantly, this Court,

in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, assumed such “actual

innocence” exception applied but found petitioner had failed to make the requisite showing.

In the instant motion, petitioner points to the same blood test evidence and reiterates

the same arguments he presented in his petition and opposition to respondent’s motion to

dismiss. For the reasons explained in the Court’s order of dismissal, the blood test results

were inconclusive and, in the context of the other evidence at trial that included a positive

identification of petitioner by the victim, fell far short of establishing his “actual innocence.” 

Petitioner does not explain how the holding in House, in which the conclusive DNA results

“called into question” the “central forensic proof” at trial, applies to his case, much less that

it compels a different result. See House, 126 S.Ct. at 2077 (describing Schlup standard as

Case 3:03-cv-05147-MMC Document 43 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

“demanding” and allowing “review only in the extraordinary case”). To the extent petitioner

challenges a perceived error in the Court’s analysis and reasoning in denying his “actual

innocence” argument and finding the petition untimely, such challenge is properly raised in

an appeal, not a motion for reconsideration. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp., 637

F.2d 1341.

Lastly, petitioner’s recent application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED

as moot; petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the commencement of

the instant action.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 40 and 42. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2007

 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05147-MMC Document 43 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 3