Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05562/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05562-6/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

Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC old\HC.11\Stockton562denrec.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JOHN STOCKTON, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

DERREL ADAMS, 

Respondent. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 11- RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a federal petition for writ of

habeas corpus challenging his 2009 gang validation. On February 20, 2015, the court denied the

petition and denied a certificate of appealability. On February 27, 2015, petitioner filed a motion

for reconsideration, and motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for reconsideration where

one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that by due 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) satisfaction of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Although couched in

broad terms, subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are

(),/('

Case 5:11-cv-05562-RMW Document 45 Filed 08/11/15 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

Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC old\HC.11\Stockton562denrec.wpd

2

extraordinary. Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.

1981). 

Rule 60(b)(6) affords courts the discretion and power “to vacate judgments whenever

such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1135 (9th

Cir. 2009). In applying Rule 60(b)(6) to petitions for habeas corpus, the Ninth Circuit has

considered the following factors to guide its exercise of its Rule 60(b)(6) discretion: (1) a

showing of extraordinary circumstances, such as a change in intervening law; (2) the petitioner’s

exercise of diligence in pursuing the issue during federal habeas proceedings; (3) interest in

finality; (4) delay between the finality of the judgment and the motion for Rule 60(b)(6) relief;

(5) degree of connection between the extraordinary circumstance and the decision for which

reconsideration is sought; and (6) comity. See id. (granting 60(b)(6) relief where the core issue

in petition was not settled until fifteen months after the appeal became final at which point it

became clear that petitioner’s interpretation of the issue was the correct one). 

In the present motions, petitioner does not indicate what provision of Rule 60(b) applies

to his case. Petitioner does not make a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

neglect. He does not set forth any newly discovered evidence, fraud, or any grounds for finding

that the judgment is void or has been satisfied. Nor does he set forth any other reason justifying

relief. The court has reviewed and considered petitioner’s motions as well as its order denying

the petition, and concluded that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as well as the motion for reconsideration are DENIED.

Petitioner has also failed to make a substantial showing that his claims amounted to a

denial of his constitutional rights, or demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would find the denial of

his claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a

certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-05562-RMW Document 45 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JOHN STOCKTON JR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DERREL G ADAMS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV11-05562 RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 11, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Robert John Stockton J-80992

C7-105

HDSP

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127

Dated: August 11, 2015

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:11-cv-05562-RMW Document 45 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3