Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01225/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01225-1/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 - 07cv1225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIRK PATRICK VAUGHT, JR.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-1225-H (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Defendant.

On September 10, 2008, the Court entered judgment adopting the Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Kirk Patrick Vaught, Jr. (Doc. No. 24.) On October 6, 2008,

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and indicated in an accompanying letter that he did not

receive a copy of the R&R prior to its adoption and that he had prejudicially missed his

opportunity to make objections to the R&R. (Doc. Nos. 26, 31.) On October 14, 2008, for

good cause shown, the Court granted Petitioner an opportunity to respond to the order adopting

the R&R. (Doc. No. 27.) The Court further ordered that Petitioner’s response be construed as

a motion for reconsideration. Id. On November 11, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the

R&R. (Doc. No. 40.)

For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

and DENIES Petitioner’s objections to the R&R. 

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 1 of 7
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 - 07cv1225

Background

A. Procedural History

On April 19, 2004, a San Diego County Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of

two counts of robbery, one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of

burglary. (Clerk’s Transcript (“CT”) at 185-91.) The jury also found true the allegation that

Petitioner personally used a firearm during the commission of the robbery. (CT at 186, 188.)

On November 30, 2004, Petitioner was sentenced to a state custody term of 18 years. (CT at

201.) Petitioner’s sentence included the applicable enhancements for personal use of a firearm

during the commission of a robbery. Id. On May 1, 2006, the California Court of Appeal

affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and found that the prosecution had presented at trial sufficient

evidence to prove that Petitioner possessed and used a firearm during the commission of the

robbery. (Lodgment 5 at 1.) On July 17, 2006, the California Supreme Court denied a petition

for review. (Lodgment 7 at 1.) On July 7, 2008, Petitioner filed with this Court a petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 7, 2007,

Respondent filed an answer. (Doc. No. 13.) On January 1, 2008, Petitioner filed a traverse.

(Doc. No. 22.) On May 5, 2008, the magistrate judge issued an R&R recommending that the

petition be denied. (Doc. No. 23.) On September 10, 2008, the Court reviewed the entire

record and issued an order denying the habeas petition. (Doc. No. 24.)

B. Factual History

The state appellate court summarized the relevant facts as follows:

At approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 28, 2003, two employees were

working at the Aaron Brothers store located on Midway Drive in San Diego. The

assistant manager, Jill Bautista, was helping Geoffrey Moon complete the final

orders for the night. When Bautista opened the store's back door to ensure it was

locked, she was approached by a woman who asked to make a return of

merchandise. Bautista explained the store was closed and she could not complete

the merchandise's return until the next day. Vaught appeared from behind the

door and told Bautista he was robbing the store. When Vaught held a gun to

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 2 of 7
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 - 07cv1225

Bautista's chest, she admitted Vaught and the woman into the store.

Bautista immediately walked to the room in which Moon was working.

Vaught followed Bautista. Bautista told Moon that Vaught was there to “take our

money.” Moon noticed Vaught had a gun pointed at Bautista. Bautista then lead

[sic] Vaught to the office, where money was kept in a safe. Vaught waved the

gun at Moon, directing him to follow.

After unlocking the office door, Bautista entered the office, followed by

Moon and Vaught. Bautista opened the safe and handed Vaught the cash from

the cash drawers. Vaught stuffed the money in his pockets. At this time, the gun

was either in his hand or his waistband, and was still visible to Bautista and

Moon. When Vaught insisted there was more money in the safe, Moon handed

over two pouches containing the daily deposits. Vaught asked Bautista and

Moon to give him time to get away, and he and the woman left the store. No gun

used in the robberies was ever recovered; the existence of a gun was based solely

on the testimonies of Bautista and Moon.

(Lodgment 5 at 2-3.)

As noted in the Court’s order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the two

robbery victims, Bautista and Moon, both testified at trial that Petitioner possessed and

personally used a gun during the robbery. (Doc. No. 23; Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) at

128, 213.) Bautista testified that Petitioner pulled a gun out of his waistband and put it to

her chest. (RT at 213-16.) When he pointed the gun at her chest, Petitioner told her “it

wasn’t a joke and that he was here to take [Aaron Brothers’] money.” (RT at 216.) 

Although Bautista’s initial reaction was that the gun looked like the kind of gun “you play

with when you’re a kid,” she testified she complied with Petitioner’s demands because she

thought the gun was real and loaded. (RT at 215, 225.) She could not remember the exact

details of the gun, only that it was “long and pointy.” (RT at 215.)

Moon testified that Petitioner had the gun in his left hand and was pointing it at

Bautista. (RT at 128.) Moon stated he had previously handled a gun and described the

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 3 of 7
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

- 4 - 07cv1225

difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol. (RT at 129.) He testified the

gun was a dark metal revolver with a long barrel, approximately nine to ten inches long. 

(RT at 129.) Moon also testified that the barrel appeared to be consistent in color and there

were no red or orange markings at the end of the barrel. (RT at 129-30.)

C. Motion for Reconsideration and Objections to the R&R

On October 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and indicated in an

accompanying letter to the Court that he did not receive a copy of the R&R prior to its

adoption and that he had prejudicially missed his opportunity to make objections to the

R&R. (Doc Nos. 26, 27.) On October 14, 2008, for good cause shown, the Court granted

Petitioner an opportunity to respond with objections to the order adopting the R&R. (Doc.

No. 27.) The Court further ordered that Petitioner’s response be construed as a motion for

reconsideration. Id. On November 11, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc.

No. 40.) 

Discussion

Petitioner’s motion and objections merely repeat the arguments raised in his original

§2254 petition and traverse. (Doc Nos. 1, 2, 40.) In his motion and objections, Petitioner

argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for being

a felon in possession of a firearm under Cal. Penal Code § 12021(a)(1) and insufficient for the

imposition of sentence enhancements for the personal use of a firearm during the commission

of a robbery under Cal. Penal Code § 12022.53(b). (Doc. No. 40.) The Court considers his

motion for reconsideration and his objections to the R&R.

A. Standard of Review for Objections to an R&R and Relief Under Rule 60(b)

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party objects to any

portion of the report, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions

of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id.

A motion for reconsideration of a final order is governed by Rule 60(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 4 of 7
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

- 5 - 07cv1225

a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(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;

(3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, is based on an earlier

judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or is no longer equitable; or 

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catch-all provision” that allows a court to vacate a judgment “for any

other reason justifying relief.” Lehman v. U.S., 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Circuit 1998). Relief

under Rule 60(b)(6) is only available when “the moving party is able to show both injury and

that circumstances beyond [his] control prevented timely action to protect [his] interests.”

United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Circuit 1993). While

Rule 60(b)(6) does not particularize any factors that must be met before relief is proper, courts

should use the Rule 60(b)(6) sparingly and only under “extraordinary circumstances.” 

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988). For example, Rule

60(b)(6) relief has been granted to a litigant against whom judgment was entered by a judge

who had improperly refused to recuse himself. Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863-65. Rule 60(b)(6)

has also been used to set aside a default judgment when the petitioner had ben ill, incarcerated,

and without counsel for the four years following the judgment. Klapprott v. United States, 335

U.S. 601 (1949).

B. Merits of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Objections to the R&R

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and objections merely repeat the arguments

raised in his §2254 petition and traverse. (Doc. Nos. 1, 22, 40.) Petitioner argues that the

evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that he used and possessed a firearm

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 - 07cv1225

during the robbery. (Doc. No. 40.) In light of Petitioner’s objections and motion, the Court has

reconsidered its order denying the §2254 petition. 

The Court has considered Petitioner’s objections under a de novo standard of review.

Petitioner merely repeats the arguments made in his §2254 petition and traverse. For the reasons

stated in the September 10, 2008 order denying the petition, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

objections to the R&R.

Relief from the judgment under any of Rule 60(b) subsections (1) through (5) would be

improper. Petitioner has not identified any excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or

misconduct by the prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3). Petitioner has not identified any

reason to declare the judgment void or any intervening circumstances that render the judgment

no longer equitable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4),(5).

Petitioner has also failed to identify “extraordinary circumstances” under which Rule

60(b)(6) relief may be granted. Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 864. Specifically, Petitioner has failed

to identify an injury that he has suffered. See Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d at 1049.

The Court addressed Petitioner’s arguments at length in its order denying the §2254 petition.

The Court then permitted Petitioner to file objections to the R&R after he alleged that he did

not receive a copy of the R&R prior to its adoption. The Court has now reconsidered

Petitioner’s arguments under a de novo standard, the required standard of review for objections

to an R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2005). After considering Petitioner’s objections, the Court

finds no reason to modify the September 10, 2008 order denying the petition. Accordingly, the

Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 - 07cv1225

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, and for the reasons stated in the September 10, 2008 order

denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court DENIES

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and DENIES Petitioner’s objections to the R&R. The

judgment entered on September 10, 2008, denying the §2254 petition remains in effect. The

Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability for the motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2009 

__________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-01225-H-CAB Document 41 Filed 09/21/09 Page 7 of 7