Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01508/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01508-1/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

19cv1508-CAB-NLS

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

ANTHONY ARTHUR BUSH,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT NEUSCHMID,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv1508-CAB-NLS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

VACATE SUMMARY DISMISSAL 

[Doc. No. 8]

On August 9, 2019, Petitioner Anthony Arthur Bush, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 US.C. §2254

(“Petition”). [Doc. No. 1.] On September 16, 2019, this Court issued a summary 

dismissal of the Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A) on the grounds that 

Petitioner had already filed a previous petition regarding the same (September 1995) state 

court conviction and had not received permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals to file a successive petition. [Doc. No. 2.] On October 30, 2019, Petitioner filed 

a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [Doc. No. 3.] On November 

19, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 60(a), 

(b)(1), (3) and (4). [Doc. No. 8.]

A. Legal Standard.

Rule 60 provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing 

of “exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 

(9th Cir. 1994). The Rule identifies six permissible grounds for relief from a final 

Case 3:19-cv-01508-CAB-NLS Document 9 Filed 12/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv1508-CAB-NLS

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

judgment, order, or proceeding, namely: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 

not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud by 

the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) and 

other reason justifying relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Further, the Rule provides that a 

motion brought under it “must be made within a reasonable time – and for reasons (1), 

(2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the 

proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c).

B. Discussion.

Here, Petitioner does not present grounds under Rule 60. Rather, he argues that the 

state court judgment of conviction is incorrect, he has asked the state court to correct the 

error, and the state court has refused to do so. [Doc. No. 8 at 1.] Nevertheless, Petitioner 

continues to seek review in this court of the same state court judgment that was the 

subject of his previous petition. As a result, this is a successive petition, and Petitioner 

must obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive 

petition. See 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A); see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 

(2007).

C. Conclusion.

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to vacate summary dismissal is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01508-CAB-NLS Document 9 Filed 12/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2