Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02287/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02287-6/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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINH N. NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

ORDER

vs.

GEORGE J. GIURBINO, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 41). 

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2005, Petitioner Linh N. Nguyen filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). On January 16, 2007, Petitioner filed

an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) (Doc. # 27). On June

7, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge McCurine issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny the Amended Petition, and deny Petitioner’s

request for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. # 30). On July 31, 2007, this Court issued an Order

adopting the R&R in its entirety (Doc. # 31). On August 1, 2007, the Clerk of the Court

entered judgment against Petitioner (Doc. # 32). 

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 10/27/08 Page 1 of 5
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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

On September 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment (“September 5

Motion to Vacate”) pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc.

# 34). Petitioner alleged that the failure to serve him with a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s

R&R constituted an extraordinary circumstance entitling him to Rule 60(b)(6) relief. On

September 13, 2007, Respondent filed a Response to the September 5 Motion to Vacate which

agreed that if in fact Petitioner did not receive a copy of the R&R, he would be entitled to

relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 36). On November 14,

2007, this Court granted the September 5 Motion to Vacate Judgment and vacated this Court’s

July 31, 2007 Order adopting the R&R (Doc. # 37). The Court stated: “Any party may file

objections to the Report and Recommendation no later than Monday, December 17, 2007.

Any party may file a reply to the objections to the Report and Recommendation no later than

Monday, January 7, 2008.” Nov. 4 Order, p. 3. 

Neither party filed objections to the R&R. On February 5, 2008, the Court issued an

Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s June 7, 2007 R&R, and denying the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus and Amended Petition and Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing

(Doc. # 38). On February 6, 2008, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment against Petitioner

(Doc. # 39). 

On May 15, 2008, Petitioner filed the Motion to Vacate Judgment (“May 15 Motion to

Vacate”) that is presently before the Court. The May 15 Motion to Vacate alleges that

Petitioner never received a copy of the Court’s November 14, 2007 Order granting the

September 5 Motion to Vacate. Petitioner requests that the Court vacate the judgment against

him on grounds that Petitioner never received the Court’s November 14, 2007 Order vacating

the Court’s August 1, 2007 judgment and granting him the opportunity to file objections on

or before December 17, 2007. 

On May 20, 2008, Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. # 43). Respondent has

not filed any response to the May 15 Motion to Vacate or to Petitioner’s Objections to the

R&R. 

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 10/27/08 Page 2 of 5
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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Vacate

In the May 15 Motion to Vacate, Petitioner contends that he never received a copy of

the Court’s November 14, 2007 Order granting the September 5 Motion to Vacate and

permitting Petitioner to file objections to the R&R on or before December 17, 2007. Petitioner

contends that his incoming legal mail logs reflect that he did not receive the Court’s November

14, 2007 Order. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may

grant a motion for relief from judgment when there is any reason not previously considered in

Rule 60(b) that justifies granting relief from operation of the judgment. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b).

A party merits relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if he demonstrates that “extraordinary circumstances”

prevented the party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.

Cmty. Dental Servs. V. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6)

normally will not be granted unless the moving party demonstrates “both injury and that

circumstances beyond its control” prevented timely action to protect its interests. Id.

After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated injury

because he had no opportunity to timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation,

and that his inability to timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation resulted from

circumstances beyond his control. The Court concludes that Petitioner has demonstrated

extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant relief from judgment. The Court grants the

May 15 Motion to Vacate.

II. Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation

Petitioner contends that the record “illustrates petitioner was under the influence of both

alcohol and marijuana at the time the offenses [underlying his conviction] were committed.”

Objections, p. 3. Petitioner contends that his trial counsel’s failure to investigate or present a

voluntary intoxication defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner further

contends that even if Petitioner’s evidence of intoxication fell short of a complete defense

during trial, his attorney should have presented such evidence “in mitigation during petitioner’s

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 10/27/08 Page 3 of 5
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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

sentencing.” Id. at 4. 

In order to obtain federal habeas relief, a state prisoner must show that his state court

conviction was either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

established federal law,” or was “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are

governed by the two-prong analysis articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668

(1984). Under the first prong, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's

representation, considering all the circumstances, fell below an objective standard of

reasonableness. Id. at 687-89. Judicial scrutiny strongly presumes that the attorney’s conduct

falls within the range of reasonable professional conduct. Id. at 689. A reasonable tactical

choice based on an adequate inquiry is immune from attack under Strickland.” Id. at 689-91.

To satisfy the second prong, petitioner must establish that he was also prejudiced by counsel's

substandard performance. Id. at 687. In order to show prejudice, the petitioner must

demonstrate with reasonable probability that, but-for counsel's unprofessional error, the

conviction or sentence would have been different. Id. at 694.” Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d

1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The record reflects that trial counsel’s election to abstain from pursuing a voluntary

intoxication defense was designed to portray Petitioner in the best light possible for purposes

of trial and sentencing. It was reasonable for Petitioner’s trial counsel to refrain from arguing

in the same breath that Petitioner was so intoxicated from alcohol and marijuana that he could

not form the specific intent to commit the underlying offense. This strategy was a reasonable

tactical choice based on adequate inquiry. The Court concludes that the decision of

Petitioner’s trial counsel not to raise a voluntary intoxication defense or to present evidence

of Petitioner’s voluntary intoxication as a mitigating factor at sentencing was not objectively

unreasonable. Petitioner has also not shown prejudice.

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 10/27/08 Page 4 of 5
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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Judgment (Doc. # 41) is

GRANTED. The February 5, 2008 Order adopting all portions of the Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 38) and the February 6, 2008 Judgment (Doc. # 39) are VACATED.

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation de

novo, and has reviewed all aspects of the Report and Recommendation. The Court concludes

that the Report and Recommendation correctly concluded that Petitioner failed to show that

he is entitled to federal habeas relief under the applicable legal standards, and that Petitioner’s

request for an evidentiary hearing should be denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is

ADOPTED. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 27) is DENIED, and

Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 

DATED: October 27, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 10/27/08 Page 5 of 5