Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02666/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02666-1/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

 On December 19, 2005, the Honorable William B. Shubb referred this matter to the 1

undersigned. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL RAY SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-2666 WBS GGH P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) filed December 12, 2005. For the following reasons,

1

the court recommends that this motion be denied.

Petitioner was convicted of robbery, was found to have suffered two previous

serious convictions, and was sentenced under California’s Three Strikes Law to twenty five years

to life imprisonment with an enhancement of five years, making his sentence–from thirty years to

life.

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02666-WBS-GGH Document 32 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

When petitioner filed this action, he was represented by counsel. The original

petition raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In particular, petitioner argued

that his counsel was ineffective for 1) failing to timely disclose evidence to the prosecutor; 2)

failing to obtain and test for fingerprints on the purse of the robbery victim; 3) failing to prepare

petitioner for testimony; 4) failing to adequately prepare for a Romero (striking priors) hearing. 

Petitioner also raised two other claims: 1) jury instruction error; and 2) his sentence constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment.

On October 4, 2004, this court recommended that the petition be denied. On

November 24, 2004, petitioner, through counsel, filed objections to the findings and

recommendations. On December 14, 2004, Judge Shubb adopted the findings and

recommendations and judgment was entered. On December 20, 2004, petitioner, through

counsel, filed a notice of appeal. On January 10, 2005, the court ordered petitioner to file within

ten days a request for a certificate of appealability identifying the grounds he would pursue on

appeal. 

Ten days passed and petitioner’s counsel did not file a request for a certificate of

appealability. Accordingly, on February 18, 2005, the district court issued a certificate of

appealability as to petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims only. On August 5, 2005,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal for his failure to file his opening

brief.

On December 12, 2005, petitioner himself filed the pending request for relief from

judgment. Petitioner argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment based on the Ninth

Circuit’s decision in Ramirez v. Castro, 365 F.3d 755 (9 Cir. 2004). Petitioner also argues that th

his counsel was ineffective in failing to move to strike one of his two prior convictions on

grounds that they were part of a single act. This argument has not been previously raised.

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02666-WBS-GGH Document 32 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

To the extent petitioner is raising new claims, he must seek permission from the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before bringing new claims in the district court. 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b). To the extent petitioner is attempting to re-argue the merits of his previously raised

claims, in essence petitioner is asking this court to overturn the default of his appeal in the Ninth

Circuit. This court does not have the authority to review a default that occurred in the appellate

court. See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 198, 71 S.Ct. 209, 211 (1950)(a party

that makes a deliberate choice not to appeal a court order cannot seek relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) when it becomes apparent in hindsight that the decision not to appeal was wrong);

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338 (9 Cir. 1981)(the relief under

th

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not meant to be a substitute for an appeal). For these reasons, the court

recommends that petitioner’s request for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve

these findings and recommendations on petitioner himself; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for relief from

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) filed December 12, 2005, be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02666-WBS-GGH Document 32 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 2/6/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

sm2666.60(b)

Case 2:02-cv-02666-WBS-GGH Document 32 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 4