Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01503-4/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

JAMES EARL PHILLIP,

Petitioner-Defendant,

No. 11-cv-1503-BTM-KSC

ORDER CONSTRUING

RULE 60(b) MOTIONS AS

SUCCESSIVE § 2254

PETITIONS AND DENYING

EACH MOTION

v.

JEFFERY BEARD,

Respondent.

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus argued that his guilty

plea was involuntary and was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel,

at least with respect to one of his prior convictions that constitutes a second

“strike” under the California Penal Code. On April 15, 2013, the Court

denied the petition and denied a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. 46.) On

or about January 17, 2014, Petitioner submitted a motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). He therein

argued that the Court erred in its analysis of his claim that he was

improperly deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. The

Court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction because it had not been

certified by a panel of Ninth Circuit judges. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). (Doc.

52.) On March 19, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a

1

Case 3:11-cv-01503-BTM-KSC Document 61 Filed 05/30/14 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

Certificate of Appealability and denied all pending motions as moot. (Doc.

53.) The Ninth Circuit thereafter denied Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration and ordered that no further filings be entertained in the

case. (Doc. 54.)

Before the Court are Petitioner’s most recent submissions to this

Court, which have been filed nunc pro tunc to the dates received. Each is a

motion for reconsideration wherein Petitioner asks the Court to refer the

matter back to the magistrate judge for consideration of his Sixth

Amendment objection. Petitioner asserts no unique grounds for relief under

Rule 60(b), but rather rehashes arguments already specifically ruled upon by

the Court. For example, he complains that the trial court improperly granted

an unopposed motion to amend the information and plea form to clarify that

a prior felony conviction was under Cal. Penal Code § 12021(a)(1). This

argument is specifically addressed in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (Doc. 34), which was adopted by the Court on April 15,

2013 (Doc. 45). Since he seeks substantive relief, Petitioner’s request is a

successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the Court

lacks jurisdiction to hear it absent permission from the Ninth Circuit. See

Torricellas v. Davidson, 279 Fed. Appx. 504, 505 (9th Cir. 2008) (construing

motion for reconsideration that “sought only to revisit the district court’s

denial on the merits of her claims for relief” as a successive § 2254 petition)

(citing Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532, 538 (2005)); Campbell v.

Blodgett, 997 F.2d 512, 515-516 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A claim is successive if it

was raised in an earlier petition, or if it fails to raise a ground for relief that is

new or different than a claim raised in an earlier petition and previously

determined on the merits.”); Fuentes v. United States, 2009 WL 1350118 (D.

Hawaii May 14, 2009) (construing new ineffective assistance of counsel

argument raised in a Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 petition). As

2

Case 3:11-cv-01503-BTM-KSC Document 61 Filed 05/30/14 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

the Ninth Circuit has not granted leave to file a successive petition, this

Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the submissions. 

For these reasons, the Court construes Petitioner’s submissions

(Docs. 56, 58, and 60) as successive petitions for habeas corpus and

DENIES them. The Court again DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 30, 2014

__________________________

Barry Ted Moskowitz

Chief United States District Judge

3

Case 3:11-cv-01503-BTM-KSC Document 61 Filed 05/30/14 Page 3 of 3