Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01371/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01371-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN W. DUNIGAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1371-LKK-GGH P

vs.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., ORDER

Respondents.

 /

On August 21, 2008, this court dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court

remedies, and judgment was thereon entered. Thereafter, petitioner filed a document entitled

“petition for writ of error (coram nobis) motion to vacate judgement [sic] 28 U.S.C. § 2254,”

which the court construes as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from judgment and to re-open his case

in limited circumstances, “including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez

v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2645-46 (2005). Rule 60(b) provides in relevant

part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

Case 2:08-cv-01371-LKK-GGH Document 24 Filed 12/24/08 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

2

party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial

under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct of

an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon

which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no

longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a

reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one

year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

The court has reviewed petitioner’s motion and finds that petitioner has added

nothing new or substantive that was not previously before the undersigned, nor does he

demonstrate any basis for the court to find that the judgment was mistaken, i.e., that petitioner

has, in fact, exhausted his state court remedies. Instead, petitioner appears to be offering the

same rationale for failing to exhaust as he did in his objections to the July 23, 2008, Findings and

Recommendations, subsequently adopted by this court. Thus, petitioner’s motion will be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to vacate the

judgment, filed on September 4, 2008 (Docket # 16), is denied.

DATED: December 23, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01371-LKK-GGH Document 24 Filed 12/24/08 Page 2 of 2