Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-00998/USCOURTS-cand-4_00-cv-00998-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRVIN VAN BUREN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 00-0998 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME, FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

AND TO RECONSIDER

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner. On March 16, 2001, the

court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss on grounds the petition was barred by the

statute of limitations. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. The court denied a certificate of

appealability and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently did

so as well.

Petitioner then filed a motion for authorization to file a second petition both in this

court, where the motion carried the docket number for this case, and the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals. Because such motions are properly filed in the Court of Appeals, not this court,

see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3) (petitioners may not file second habeas petition in district court

without order from a court of appeals allowing him or her to do so), the motion was denied

here. The court of appeals appointed counsel, and after full briefing, denied permission to

file a second or successive petition on January 15, 2004. The case file was returned to this

court from the court of appeal shortly before entry of that court’s opinion and the clerk of

this court subsequently dispatched it to the Federal Records Center.

On July 21, 2004, petitioner filed two motions here, a motion to set aside the

judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and a motion for

Case 4:00-cv-00998-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/22/07 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

appointment of counsel. They could not be located, so on March 17, 2005, the court

denied them with the suggestion that petitioner refile them if he still wished to pursue them. 

Petitioner has filed a new motion for appointment of counsel, a new Rule 60(b) motion, and

a motion for an extension of time to file it.

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner moves for appointment of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. 

Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes appointment of counsel to represent a habeas petitioner

whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so require and such person is

financially unable to obtain representation." 

Petitioner has presented his claims adequately, and at this stage of the case they

are not particularly complex. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. 

II. Motion for Extension of Time

Petitioner moves for an extension of time to file his Rule 60(b) motion. The court

cannot extend the time to file such a motion. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(b). The motion will be

denied. 

III. Rule 60(b) Motion

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lists six grounds for relief from a

judgment. Such a motion must be made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for

relief (1) - (3), no later than one year after the judgment was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

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 which

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

the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any

other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Even if the motion were treated as filed on July 21, 2004, when the lost motion was

Case 4:00-cv-00998-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/22/07 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

filed, that still would not be within a year of entry of judgment, which was on March 16,

2001, so only grounds four, five and six of those quoted above could be applicable. It is

obvious that neither grounds four nor five apply, as petitioner is simply contending that his

petition should not have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. That leaves the

“catch-all” section, six. 

Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall provision” that applies only when the reason for granting

relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in Rule 60. Samish Indian Tribe

v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005). “It has been used sparingly as an

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary

circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an

erroneous judgment.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

Petitioner’s argument is that lockdowns and difficult conditions at the prison

prevented him from filing his petition on time. He does not, however, provide any reason

for not making the present arguments – including the Suspension Clause argument – in

opposition to the motion to dismiss, much less show “extraordinary circumstances,” and so

has failed to establish grounds for setting aside the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). The

motion will be denied.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his Rule 60(b) motion (document

number 40), his motion for appointment of counsel (document 42), and his Rule 60(b)

motion (document number 43) are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2007.

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.00\VANBU998.REC2.wpd

Case 4:00-cv-00998-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3