Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00289/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00289-0/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)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, Civil No. 14cv0289-GPC (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b)

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT AND DENYING

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

On February 6, 2014, Petitioner, Earnest Cassell Woods, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his

April 29, 1987, conviction and sentence in San Diego Superior Court Case No. CR 83908. (See

Pet. at 1.) On February 12, 2014, the Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), which provides that a petitioner cannot proceed with a

second or successive petition in the district court without permission from the Court of Appeals. 

The Court noted that Petitioner had already challenged his April 29, 1987, conviction in a

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this Court, which was denied on the merits, and that

Petitioner admitted he has not received permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to

file a second or successive petition. (See ECF No. 5 at 1-2.) The Court also noted that one of

the claims presented in the Petition apparently challenges a recent denial of parole, and notified

Petitioner that if he wishes to challenge the denial of parole, he must do so in a separate petition. 

See Rule 2(e), Rules foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\14cv0289-Rule60(b).wpd, 31914 -1- 14cv0289

Case 3:14-cv-00289-GPC-RBB Document 14 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 3
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

more than one state court must file a separate petitions covering the judgment or judgments of

each court.”)

Petitioner has now filed a Motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b), Objections to the dismissal Order, and a Motion for change of venue. 

(ECF Nos. 9, 11, 13.) Petitioner states in his Rule 60(b) Motion that he is asking the Court to

reopen the judgement in his previous habeas case rather than dismiss the Petition as second or

successive. Petitioner states in his Objections and Motion for change of venue, however, that

he intended, in the instant Petition, to challenge his recent parole denial, and asks the Court to

vacate its dismissal Order and transfer the Petition to the District Court for the Northern District

of California where the parole denial took place. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) entitles the moving party to relief from judgment

based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (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); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (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 (6) any other

reason that justifies relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

Petitioner has failed to satisfy any of these provisions, either for reconsideration of the

February 12, 1014, dismissal Order in this case, or in his previous habeas case in this Court. See

United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a Rule 60(b)

motion which does not allege a “defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding” but

merely seeks to re-litigate claims which were previously denied on the merits, must be treated

as a second or successive petition), citing Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005); see

also Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (same). Rather, as the

Court observed, the Petition in this matter, as written, challenges Petitioner’s April 29, 1987,

conviction as well as his recent parole denial, and Rule 2(e) of the Rules following 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 precludes the Court from considering two such challenges in the same petition. 

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\14cv0289-Rule60(b).wpd, 31914 -2- 14cv0289

Case 3:14-cv-00289-GPC-RBB Document 14 Filed 03/20/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Petitioner was and remains free to file a separate federal habeas petition challenging his recent

parole denial in the district court for the Northern District of California, which is the proper

venue for such a petition. 

1

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s February 12, 2014, Order of dismissal, this Court

lacks jurisdiction over the Petition because it is second or successive. Petitioner’s belated

assurance that the Petition challenges only his recent parole denial strains the requirement of

liberal construction of pro se pleadings. In light of Petitioner’s professed understanding that

proper venue for his parole challenges lies in the Northern District of California, and the lack

of any barrier apparent to his proceeding with such a petition in that Court, the Court finds no

basis upon which to vacate the previous Order of dismissal, construe the Petition as presenting

only a challenge to Petitioner’s recent parole denial, and transfer the action to the Northern

District of California. To the extent the Rule 60(b) Motion seeks to reopen the previous federal

habeas case in this Court, it is denied as an attempt to file a second or successive petition.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court DENIES Petitioner Rule 60(b) Motion, and DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for

change of venue. The denials are without prejudice to Petitioner to present his challenge to the

denial of parole to the Northern District of California in a separate petition. The Court declines

to issue a Certificate of Appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Although a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 1

of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which

he was convicted, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497

(1973), it is generally the practice of the district courts in California to transfer habeas actions

challenging parole denials to the district in which the judgment denying parole was entered. Any and

all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s contentions are available

in that court, which in this case is the Northern District of California. Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15

(stating that a court can, of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily

a more convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968).

I:\Chambers Curiel\Civil - Odd\14cv0289-Rule60(b).wpd, 31914 -3- 14cv0289

Case 3:14-cv-00289-GPC-RBB Document 14 Filed 03/20/14 Page 3 of 3