Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_00-cv-01065/USCOURTS-casd-3_00-cv-01065-2/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

EDWARD V. SHELL,

Petitioner,

Case No. 00cv1065 BTM(RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

v. AMEND OR ALTER JUDGMENT

RICK HILL,

Respondent.

On January 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). In an order filed on September 3, 2014,

the Court construed Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2254

Petition and denied the motion because Petitioner had not obtained the

permission of the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition.

On October 1, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Judgment under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court construes the motion as a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s September 3 Order. 

Petitioner argues that the Court’s prior Order was erroneous because the

Court overlooked Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012). Petitioner argues

that under Martinez, AEDPA does not bar his claims of ineffective assistance

of trial counsel that were not raised on direct appeal or initial review collateral

proceedings.

1 00cv1065 BTM(RBB)

Case 3:00-cv-01065-BTM-RBB Document 53 Filed 10/10/14 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

27

28

In Martinez, the Supreme Court held:

Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a

procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing

a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initialreview collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in

that proceeding was ineffective.

Id. at 1320. Relying on Martinez, Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion asserted

additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. For example, the motion

alleged that trial counsel failed to correct erroneous information in the probation

report and at sentencing. However, Petitioner misconstrues Martinez. 

Martinez clarifies that although § 2254(i) precludes a petitioner from relying on

the ineffectiveness of his postconviction attorney as a “ground for relief,” it does

not stop him from using it to establish “cause” for a procedural default – i.e.,

failure to raise an ineffective assistance claim in an initial review collateral

proceeding. Id. at 1320. Martinez does not hold that the rule against

successive petitions is inapplicable to these types of ineffective assistance of

counsel claims. 

Accordingly, Petitioner cannot raise additional claims of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel that were not contained in his habeas petition. To

the extent Petitioner is making additional arguments about the ineffective

assistance of counsel claims that were raised in his habeas petition and were

denied, Martinez is inapposite because the claims were denied on their merits,

not as procedurally defaulted. Furthermore, nothing in Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)

motion establishes a basis for relief from the judgment.

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2014

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 00cv1065 BTM(RBB)

Case 3:00-cv-01065-BTM-RBB Document 53 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 2