Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01086-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

T. FELKER,

Respondent.

No. 2:06-cv-1086 MCE KJN (HC) (TEMP)

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 

No. 63), which the Court construes as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b). Respondent has filed an opposition to the motion, and petitioner has filed a reply.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction 

for robbery and burglary. ECF No. 1. On July 15, 2008, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued 

Findings and Recommendations, recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition

as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) be granted. 

ECF No. 48. On August 22, 2008, the assigned District Judge adopted those Findings and 

Case 2:06-cv-01086-MCE-KJN Document 70 Filed 11/25/15 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

2

Recommendations in full, granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and closed this habeas action. 

ECF No. 52. Shortly thereafter, the assigned District Judge denied Petitioner’s request for a 

certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also denied petitioner’s request 

for a certificate of appealability. Now, more than six years later, petitioner has filed the pending 

Rule 60(b) motion in which he appears to challenge the constitutionality of AEDPA. 

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, district courts may apply the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided they are not inconsistent with the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases or any statutory provisions. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a 

final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) 

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have 

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 

misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an opposing party; (4) 

the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . .; or (6) 

any other reason that justifies relief. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion is untimely. Insofar as Petitioner seeks relief under Rule 

60(b)(1), (2), or (3), his Motion is untimely; he should have filed his motion “no more than a year 

after the entry of judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Insofar 

as Petitioner seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(4), (5), or (6), he should have filed his motion within 

“a reasonable time.” Id. Petitioner unduly delayed more than six years before filing the pending 

Motion and has offered no explanation to the Court for this delay. See Hammer v. Drago (In re 

Hammer), 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding unexcused two-year delay in filing of Rule 

60(b) motion was unreasonable). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED as untimely.

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01086-MCE-KJN Document 70 Filed 11/25/15 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

3

OTHER MATTERS

Also pending before the court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF 

No. 64. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 

require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In light of the discussion above, the 

Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 63) is DENIED; 

2. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 64) is DENIED; and

3. The Court will not issue any further orders in response to future filings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

Case 2:06-cv-01086-MCE-KJN Document 70 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 3