Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01602/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01602-0/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 Order of Dismissal; Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment; Denying Motions to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Gerkin602dissuc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT E. GERKIN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

M.C. KRAMER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1602 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT; DENYING

MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AS

MOOT

(Docket Nos. 1, 2, 4)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Petitioner requests

permission to raise new claims alleging fraud in his underlying 1995 criminal conviction

in the Santa Clara Superior Court. Petitioner filed an earlier habeas action with this

Court, case number C 01-20766 JF (PR), challenging the same conviction and sentence

raised in the instant motion. In case no. C 01-20766 (PR), the Court denied the petition

on the merits on December 19, 2003. The Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s denial

of the petition in August 2005. The Court will DISMISS the instant habeas action as a

Case 5:08-cv-01602-JF Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 4
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 Order of Dismissal; Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment; Denying Motions to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Gerkin602dissuc 2

second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

DISCUSSION

Petitioner moves the Court for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b). In the instant motion, Petitioner alleges two new claims for habeas

relief: (1) the prosecution committed misconduct by convincing the trial court that it did

not have to exclude any of the prosecution’s witnesses from the preliminary examination;

and (2) the prosecution acted in collusion with the expert witness to expound a theory

developed by the witness and her business partner at their anger management clinic. 

A Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2254 case is not to be treated as a successive habeas

petition if it does not assert, or reassert, claims of error in the movant’s state conviction. 

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 537-38 (2005). If neither the motion itself nor the

federal judgment from which it seeks relief substantively addresses federal grounds for

setting aside the movant’s state conviction, allowing the motion to proceed as

denominated creates no inconsistency with the habeas statue and rules. Id. at 533. 

A Rule 60(b) motion that contains one or more “claims,” i.e., an asserted basis for

relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction, is, if not in substance a successive

habeas petition, at least similar enough that failing to subject it to the same requirements

would be inconsistent with the habeas statute. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530-31. In most

cases, determining whether a Rule 60(b) motion advances one or more “claims,” and

therefore should be treated as a successive habeas petition, will be relatively simple. Id.

at 532. A motion that seeks to add a new ground for relief will of course qualify. Id. A

motion can also be said to bring a “claim” if it attack’s the federal court’s previous

resolution of a claim on the merits, since alleging that the court erred in denying habeas

relief on the merits is effectively indistinguishable from alleging that the movant is, under

the substantive provisions of the statutes, entitled to habeas relief. Id. at 532; see also 

Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) 

Case 5:08-cv-01602-JF Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 2 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment; Denying Motions to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Gerkin602dissuc 3

(in most cases, a Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a successive habeas petition if

the factual predicate for the motion also states a claim for a successive petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)); Ortiz v. Stewart, 195 F.3d 520, 520-21 (9th Cir. 1999) (same);

Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1998) (same). 

A district court must dismiss claims presented in a second or successive habeas

petition challenging the same conviction and sentence unless the claims presented in the

previous petition were denied for failure to exhaust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1); Babbitt

v. Woodford, 177 F.3d 744, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1999). Additionally, a district court must

dismiss any new claims raised in a successive petition unless the petitioner received an

order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the petition. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), (3).

The Court construes Petitioner’s motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) as a second or

successive petition challenging the same conviction and sentence as in Petitioner’s earlier

habeas action, C 01-20766 JF (PR). Petitioner raises two new claims of error in his 1995

Santa Clara Superior Court criminal proceedings. See Pet.’s Motion at 6-10. The instant

motion challenges the same conviction and sentence as the earlier petition in case no. 

C 01-20766 JF (PR). This earlier habeas petition was denied on the merits, and Petitioner

has not presented an order from the Court of Appeals authorizing this Court to consider

any new claims. Accordingly, this Court must dismiss the instant habeas action in its

entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).

CONCLUSION

 Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b) (docket no. 1) is DENIED. The instant habeas action is DISMISSED

without prejudice as a second and successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

///

///

///

Case 5:08-cv-01602-JF Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal; Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment; Denying Motions to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis as Moot

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.08\Gerkin602dissuc 4

Based upon the dismissal, Petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (docket nos.

2, 4) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ______________ _____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

5/9/08

Case 5:08-cv-01602-JF Document 8 Filed 05/14/08 Page 4 of 4