Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00861/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00861-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 - 08cv0861

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE HOLLOWAY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08 CV 0861 JM (AJB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

vs. RECONSIDERATION

JOHN MARSHALL,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1651. Petitioner challenges his 1993 state court conviction for residential burglary, which

was used to enhance his sentence following his 2003 conviction for selling and furnishing cocaine

base. He contends that he was denied his right to be present at a readback of testimony in the 1993

case. (Pet. at 2-6.) He also admitted that he presented the same claim in a prior federal habeas

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (see Case no. 06cv0226 LAB (PCL) (Doc. no. 29)), and that the court

held that he was precluded from collaterally attacking the prior conviction by Lackawanna County

Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 403-04 (2001). (Pet. at 2.) On May 27, 2008, this court

dismissed the petition as successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner now moves for

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60.

Under Rule 60(b), a court may grant reconsideration on the grounds of, inter alia, “mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” FRCP 60(b)(1). The “mistake” component of Rule

60(b)(1) allows a court to correct its own error of law. See Kingsvision Pay-Per-View v. Lake Alice

Case 3:08-cv-00861-JM-AJB Document 6 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 2
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 - 08cv0861

Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity

Comm., 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982)). Petitioner argues that the court erred in dismissing his

§ 1651 petition because his earlier § 2254 petition was dismissed not on the merits but for a technical

or procedural reason. (Mot. at 2.) This argument has no merit. In Lackawanna County, the Court

held:

once a state conviction is no longer open to direct or collateral attack in its own right

. . . [and] that conviction is later used to enhance a criminal sentence, the defendant

generally may not challenge the enhanced sentence through a petition under § 2254 on

the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained.

532 U.S. at 403-04. Thus, in holding that Lackawanna County precluded Petitioner’s claim, the court

ruled directly on the merits of the petition. (See Case no. 06cv0226 at 7-8.) The court therefore

DENIES Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the May 27, 2008 order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00861-JM-AJB Document 6 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2