Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01127/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01127-1/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

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

- 1 - 05cv1127

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1127-H (PCL)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B)

vs.

GEORGE GALAZA, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Kenneth Hernandez seeks relief from a judgment that has already been

reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 14, 2006, the Court

adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted the motion to dismiss, without

prejudice, the underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. (Doc. No. 29.) Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on August 4, 2006, and the

Court denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on September 1, 2006.

(Doc Nos. 31-32.) On March 15, 2007, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s request for

a certificate of appealability. (See Case No. 06-56241 Docket.)

On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

Rule 60(b). (Doc. No. 35.) That same day, Petitioner also requested appointment of

counsel. (Doc. No. 37.) On May 10, 2007 the court denied Petitioner’s request for

appointment of counsel and ordered Respondent to file a response to the Rule 60(b)

motion on or before June 11, 2007. (Doc. Nos. 38-39.) Respondent filed the response

Case 3:05-cv-01127-H-PCL Document 41 Filed 09/18/07 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

- 2 - 05cv1127

on June 11, 2007. (Doc. No. 40.)

Petitioner filed the underlying petition on May 31, 2005. (Doc. No. 1.) On

October 12, 2005, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was

both time-barred and contained a combination of exhausted and unexhausted claims.

(Doc. No. 14.) On February 21, 2006, Magistrate Judge Lewis entered a Report and

Recommendation that the motion be granted and the petition dismissed, which the

Court adopted. (Doc. No. 21, 29.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for relief

from judgment.

Discussion

Petitioner’s direct review ended when the California Supreme Court denied his

petition for review on March 22, 2000. (Lodgment 11.) His state conviction became

final ninety days thereafter, on June 20, 2000, and any habeas petition was due within

one year of that date absent any tolling. (See Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation at 9-10.) The Court previously dismissed, without prejudice, this

petition for habeas corpus, filed on May 31, 2005, because it was untimely. (See

Id. at 9-15.) At that time, the Court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the statute of

limitations should be tolled because of his mental state. (Id. at 12-14). Petitioner’s

current motion seeks relief on the grounds of excusable neglect because of his mental

state. 

Motions pursuant to Rule 60(b) are within the sound discretion of the trial court.

 Perrin v. Aluminum Co. of America, 197 F.2d 254, 255 (9th Cir. 1952). Rule 60(b)(6),

which permits relief from judgment for reasons including excusable neglect, should be

used only “sparingly” to prevent “manifest injustice.” Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d

1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Jackson v. Roe,

425 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 60 should be used only where “‘extraordinary

circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an

erroneous judgment.’” Greenawalt, 105 F.3d at 1273 (quoting United States v. Alpine

Case 3:05-cv-01127-H-PCL Document 41 Filed 09/18/07 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

- 3 - 05cv1127

Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

The Court has already considered petitioner’s medications in the equitable tolling

context, and they are not presented in a different light here. Petitioner’s additional

medical records from 1995 are of essentially the same character as medical records that

the Court considered when it denied the petition. (See Order Adopting Report and

Recommendation at 12-14.) Accordingly, Petitioner has not met the standard for relief

from judgment under Rule 60(b).

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for relief

from judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2007

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:05-cv-01127-H-PCL Document 41 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3