Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01816/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01816-10/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-98-1816 FCD EFB P 

vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On August 8, 2005, the court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations and denied his habeas corpus petition, and judgment was entered. On March

19, 2010, petitioner filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and (6) seeking relief from

judgment.

Rule 60(b) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment for:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence...; (3)

fraud...; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied...or; (6) any other reason

that justifies relief. “A motion brought under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable

time–and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order

or the date of the proceeding.”

Case 2:98-cv-01816-FCD-EFB Document 130 Filed 07/23/10 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

2

Petitioner argues that his motion is properly brought under sections (4) and (6) of

Rule 60 because the magistrate judge who issued the findings and recommendations did not rule

on one of the claims in his habeas petition. Petitioner argues that his petition presented two

separate arguments: 1) “the jury’s verdict of murder is contrary to the law and evidence because

there was insufficient evidence to establish malice aforethought beyond a reasonable doubt,” and

2) “the evidence at trial established nothing more than a manslaughter conviction based on the

imperfect self-defense doctrine.” 

The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations stated:

Petitioner contends the evidence was insufficient to support a

finding of malice aforethought. 

A conviction based on insufficient evidence violates due process. 

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). Considering the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court

reviews the record to determine if any rational trier of fact could

find the elements, as defined by state law, beyond a reasonable

doubt. Id.; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 974 F.2d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir.

1992).

In California, the unlawful killing of a human being with malice

aforethought, express or implied, is murder. Cal. Pen. Code §§

187(a), 188. Second degree murder is proved by evidence the

accused specifically intended to kill or committed an act inherently

dangerous to human life with conscious disregard for the

consequences. In re Sergio R., 279 Cal. Rptr. 149 (Cal. App.

1991); People v. Nieto Benitez, 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 864, 872-73 (Cal.

1992). Petitioner’s conduct was inherently dangerous to human

life and exhibited conscious disregard for obvious consequences. 

Even when viewed without the permitted bias for the state, the

evidence was entirely adequate for a rational trier of fact to find all

of the elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable

doubt upon either theory. 

Dckt. No. 72 at 12-13. Petitioner argues that this ruling only applies to his first claim, and that

the court failed to reach the merits of his second claim. 

Petitioner is mistaken. There can only be one sufficiency of the evidence claim. 

The magistrate judge ruled against petitioner’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to

Case 2:98-cv-01816-FCD-EFB Document 130 Filed 07/23/10 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

3

support a finding of malice; that is, he found that there was sufficient evidence for a rational factfinder to find all of the elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Had the

evidence so overwhelmingly supported petitioner’s imperfect self-defense claim so that a

rational fact-finder could not have found him guilty of murder, the element of malice would have

been negated. Thus, the magistrate judge’s ruling addressed petitioner’s sufficiency of the

evidence arguments. 

As petitioner’s Rule 60 motion lacks merit, the court need not address its

timeliness.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s March 19, 2010 motion for Rule

60(b) relief is denied. 

Dated: July 23, 2010.

Case 2:98-cv-01816-FCD-EFB Document 130 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3