Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03212/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03212-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In its order of October 25, 2005, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted based on petitioner’s second claim, which the Court found to

be cognizable. Thereafter, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely was

denied, and respondent filed an answer in which he contends the petition should be denied. 

The petition is currently under submission to the Court for a decision on the merits of

petitioner’s second claim.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALVIN T. KUTZER,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3212 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 27)

On August 8, 2005, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October

25, 2005, the Court dismissed petitioner’s first, third and fourth claims because they alleged

constitutional violations that occurred prior to petitioner’s entry of a guilty plea. See Haring

v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 319-20 (1983) (holding guilty plea forecloses consideration of

habeas claims based on pre-plea constitutional deprivations); see also Tollett v. Henderson,

411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973).1

 Now before the Court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

of the Court’s dismissal of his fourth claim, in which claim petitioner alleged the prosecutor’s

joinder of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor violated his rights under

the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any order which does

not terminate the action is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment. See

Case 3:05-cv-03212-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/19/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

If petitioner wishes to assert in federal court a new claim based on Cunningham, he

first must exhaust such claim in the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. 1997e. 

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

No. 11 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

In his motion, petitioner requests that the Court reconsider the dismissal of his fourth

claim in light of the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v.

California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). In Cunningham, the Supreme Court held that California's

determinate sentencing law violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a jury trial because it

authorizes the judge, not the jury, to find the facts permitting an upper term sentence. Id. at

871. Petitioner did not assert in his fourth claim, or anywhere in his petition, that his

sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury. Cunningham did not address the

allegations raised in petitioner’s fourth claim, namely, the assertedly improper joinder of

charges in violation of the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments. As the decision in

Cunningham does not address the Constitutional violations alleged in petitioner’s fourth

claim, the decision does not warrant reconsideration of the dismissal of said claim.2

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 27. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03212-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/19/07 Page 2 of 2