Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01190/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01190-9/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)

---

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Gerald Allen Harper,

Petitioner,

v.

James Tilton, et al.

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CV 06-01190-GHK 

Order (1) Denying Rule 60(b) Motion

and (2) Denying Certificate of

Appealability

This matter is before us on Petitioner’s Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2),

and (3) filed on November 15, 2013. Petitioner seeks relief from our July 20, 2009

Judgment denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Because Petitioner

does not allege a defect in the integrity of the prior federal habeas proceeding but instead

presents claims constituting a renewed request for relief on the merits, we must treat this

Motion as a successive habeas petition.1 See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532

1

 In any event, if we construed Petitioner’s Motion as a Rule 60(b) motion, it

would still fail because it is untimely. A motion for relief from judgment under

Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) must be made “no more than a year after the entry of

judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Petitioner filed the instant motion four years after entry of judgment in the federal

habeas proceeding. Moreover, Petitioner’s claims are patently without merit. 

Case 2:06-cv-01190-GHK Document 70 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 2
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

(2005); see also Burton v. Steward, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53 (2007).

A district court does not have jurisdiction to hear a second or successive habeas

petition without prior authorization from a court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

Petitioner has neither sought nor obtained an order permitting us to entertain his second

petition. Accordingly, this Motion is DENIED without prejudice for lack of

jurisdiction.

Further, Petitioner cannot show that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling. Therefore, we DENY issuance of a

certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rule 11(a),

Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2014

_______________________________

GEORGE H. KING

United States District Judge2

Petitioner bases his request for relief from judgment on one misconstrued sentence

in a State court order issued by Judge Steve White of the Sacramento County

Superior Court. Petitioner claims that this sentence constitutes affirmative proof of

fraud by the State court. But Judge White makes no admission to the effect that

the State court intentionally withheld files from Petitioner or the Court of Appeal. 

Rather, he merely summarizes Petitioner’s claims in his state habeas proceedings. 

No reasonable reading of this sentence could support Petitioner’s claim for relief.

2

 Chief United States District Judge for the Central District of California

sitting by designation.

2

Case 2:06-cv-01190-GHK Document 70 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 2