Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00968/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00968-0/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

1 01CV968 BTM (BEN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE V. QUILLAR,

Petitioner-Defendant,

Case No. 01CV968 BTM (BEN)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT

RICK M. HILL,

Respondent-Plaintiff.

On May 29, 2003, the Court filed an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition be denied. Petitioner now moves

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) for relief from this judgment. For the reasons that follow, this

motion is DENIED.

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion is based on Petitioner’s “new discovery” that his trial

counsel was disbarred in 2007 for misconduct in two matters, one of which involved the

attorney’s failure to competently work on a state habeas corpus petition. (See app. at 28-30)

The gravamen of Petitioner’s motion is that his claims for ineffective assistance of counsel

and other claims raised in his habeas petition should be reevaluated in light of this

disbarment.

Defendant’s motion is actually a successive § 2254 motion and the Court shall treat

it as such. See Gurry v. McDaniel, 149 Fed. Appx. 593, 596 (9th Cir. 2005) (construing

ineffective assistance of counsel argument raised in a Rule 60(b) motion as a successive §

2255 petition). A Rule 60(b) motion constitutes a second or successive habeas petition

Case 3:01-cv-00968-BTM Document 85 Filed 12/07/10 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

2 01CV968 BTM (BEN)

under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) when it “seeks vindication of” or “advances” one or more “claims.”

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005). A claim is defined as “an asserted federal

basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction”; a motion brings a claim “if it

attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” Id. at 532. “On the

merits” refers “to a determination that there exist or do not exist grounds entitling a petitioner

to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a) and (d).” Id. at n.4. By contrast, a Rule

60(b) motion that “challenges only the District Court’s failure to reach the merits [of a habeas

claim] does not warrant such treatment, and can therefore be ruled upon by the District Court

without precertification by the Court of Appeals pursuant to § 2244(b)(3).” Id. at 538.

Here, Petitioner brings the same substantive claims for federal relief that were raised

in the habeas petition. The Court reached the merits of each of his claims in the denial of

his petition. C.f. Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1132 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b)(6)

motion not a successive petition where District Court’s denial of habeas petition rested on

statute of limitations grounds). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion, “although labeled a Rule

60(b) motion, is in substance a successive habeas petition.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 531. 

The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s successive § 2254 motion

because the successive motion has not been certified by a panel of Ninth Circuit judges as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Therefore, Defendant’s successive § 2254 motion is

DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cv-00968-BTM Document 85 Filed 12/07/10 Page 2 of 2