Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00380/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00380-2/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 

17cv00380 JAH-PCL 

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 

STEVEN KLEIN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DEAN BORDERS, 

Respondent. 

 Case No.: 17cv00380 JAH-PCL 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 68] 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3), a party may seek an 

order setting aside a judgment based on fraud on the court. Petitioner argues Respondent 

engaged in fraud by presenting a shorter version of the Mobile Video Audio Recording 

System (“MVARS”) to the Court and not addressing his challenges to its authenticity. 

Petitioner challenged the MVARS in his traverse. The Court determined Petitioner’s 

allegations that the video was altered were groundless and overruled his objections to its 

authenticity. See Order Adopting the magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and 

Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at (Doc. No. 56) at 4.5 Petitioner’s current 

                                               

5

 Petitioner appealed the order and judgment and the Ninth Circuit denied his request for a certificate of 

appealability upon finding Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

Case 3:17-cv-00380-JAH-RBM Document 69 Filed 12/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17cv00380 JAH-PCL 

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

motion provides no additional facts demonstrating the MVARS was improperly 

authenticated or that Respondent committed a fraud on the Court by attesting to its 

authenticity. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner’s motion for relief from 

judgment is DENIED.

DATED: December 10, 2019 

 

 _________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

                                               

right. See Doc. Nos. 60, 65. The Ninth Circuit later denied his motion for reconsideration and motion 

for reconsideration en banc. See Doc. No. 66. 

Case 3:17-cv-00380-JAH-RBM Document 69 Filed 12/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2