Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01488/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01488-2/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

KEITH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

Civil No. 11-1488 AJB (NLS) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [ECF No.

25]

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

On July 1, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis that was not accompanied by a trust fund account statement from the correctional

facility in which Petitioner was incarcerated. [ECF Nos. 1, 2.] On July 28, 2011, Petitioner

submitted a second application to proceed in forma pauperis, with his prison trust fund account

attached. [ECF No. 4.] 

On August 4, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner’s July 28, 2011, application to proceed

in forma pauperis, denied the July 1, 2011, application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and

dismissed the case for Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent, state grounds for relief

in the petition, and allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies. (Order 6, Aug. 4, 2011, ECF

No. 5.) Petitioner was informed that if he wished to proceed with this action he was required

to file a First Amended Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies noted in the Order on or

-1- 11cv1488

Case 3:11-cv-01488-AJB-KSC Document 34 Filed 05/02/12 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

before September 27, 2011. (Id.)

On October 31, 2011, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. [ECF No. 7.] On

November 9, 2011, the Court dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice and with

leave to amend for Petitioner’s failure to state grounds for relief in the petition, and allege

exhaustion of state judicial remedies. (Order 5, Nov. 9, 2011, ECF No. 9.) To have the case

reopened, Petitioner was informed that he must file a Second Amended Petition which remedied

the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s Order no later than January 10, 2012. 

On January 24, 2012, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition. [ECF Nos. 16.] By

Order dated February 6, 2012, the Court issued an Order indicating that Petitioner failed to allege

exhaustion as to claims three, four, five and six in his Second Amended Petition. (Order 2, Feb.

6, 2012, ECF No. 18.) The Order outlined options from which Petitioner was advised he must

choose no later than March 12, 2012, regarding the unexhausted claims. (Id. at 3.) On February

15, 2012, Petitioner filed a response to the Court’s February 6, 2012, Order, in which he appeared

to assert he had exhausted all of the claims. (Resp. Options Order 1, Feb. 15, 2011, ECF No.

20.) By Order dated April 17, 2012, the Court issued an Order Requiring Response to the

Second Amended Petition. (Order 1, Apr. 17, 2012, ECF No. 31.)

On February 16, 2012, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule

60(b) in which he requests that the Court set aside the November 9, 2011, judgment dismissing

his First Amended Petition. (Mot. for Relief from Judgment 1, ECF No. 25.) Although

somewhat unclear, it appears Petitioner is arguing that the November 9, 2011, dismissal of his

First Amended Petition must be vacated in order to “clear the discrepancies” between the First

Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner claims the Court

should grant his motion based on “excusable neglect of the Petitioner to file an amend[sic]

pleading of a First Amended pleading.” (Id. 1.) 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) provides for relief from a final judgment on

the basis of, inter alia, “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . [or] any other

reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1),(6); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.

524, 529–30(2005) (Rule 60(b) applies to habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). The

-2- 11cv1488

Case 3:11-cv-01488-AJB-KSC Document 34 Filed 05/02/12 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

burden of proof is on the party bringing the Rule 60(b) motion. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk

County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383,(1992); see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255,

1262 (9th Cir.1993) (citations omitted). “To justify relief under Rule 60(b)(1), a party must

show “excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). 

Although Petitioner brings his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) and argues he is entitled to

relief due to excusable neglect, he cannot obtain the relief he seeks via Rule 60(b). Petitioner

requests that the Court vacate its November 9, 2011 Order to “clear the discrepancies” between

the First Amended Petition and the Second Amended Petition and allow him to proceed with the

claims in his Second Amended Petition, however, there is no need to clear any discrepancies

between the petitions, as an amended petition supercedes a prior petition, and the prior petition

is “treated thereafter as non-existent.” Forsyth v. Humana, Inc. 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir.

1997). Therefore, Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition is the operative pleading in this case and

supercedes the First Amended Petition. Further, Petitioner has failed to show that dismissal of

the Court’s November 9, 2011, Order will provide the relief he seeks, despite bearing the burden

to demonstrate his entitlement to Rule 60(b) relief. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383. For the foregoing

reasons, the Court declines to vacate its November 9, 2011, Order dismissing the First Amended

Petition, and DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

ALL PARTIES

CC:

-3- 11cv1488

Case 3:11-cv-01488-AJB-KSC Document 34 Filed 05/02/12 Page 3 of 3