Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-20535/USCOURTS-cand-5_99-cv-20535-0/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 Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, Denying Motion to Vacate Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535misc

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP MORRIS, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.C. NEWLAND, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-20535 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT,

DENYING MOTION TO

VACATE JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 51, 53)

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court granted Respondent’s motion to

dismiss the petition as untimely and entered judgment on April 10, 2003. On June 5,

2003, the Court granted Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability on the

following issues: (1) whether AEDPA’s limitation period should be statutorily tolled; and

(2) whether AEDPA’s limitation period should be equitably tolled in the instant petition. 

On May 19, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s order

dismissing the petition as untimely. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from

judgment, a first amended motion to vacate judgment, and two letters requesting a status

**Original filed 8/8/06**

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 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 Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, Denying Motion to Vacate Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535misc

of the instant case. 

Petitioner requests relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule

60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be made within a

“reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one year after the

judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for

reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence

could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

(9th Cir.1993). 

Petitioner fails to establish any of the grounds for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). In

2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s dismissal of the instant petition and

Petitioner’s case is now closed. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for relief from

judgment and motion to vacate judgment (docket nos. 51, 53) are DENIED. The Clerk

shall terminate any pending motions. No further motions shall be filed in this closed case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/4/06 /s/

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, Denying Motion to Vacate Judgment

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.99\Morris535misc

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Phillip Morris, Jr.

H-59819

CA Mens Colony -East

P.O. Box 8101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93409

Peggy S. Ruffra

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:99-cv-20535-JF Document 56 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 3