Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01245/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-01245-0/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 - 02cv1245

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY V. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 02cv1245-IEG(JFS)

Order Denying Motion to Alter or

vs. Amend the Judgment [Doc. No. 25]

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Anthony Williams has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment in this case

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons explained

below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

In his original and amended habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner

argued (1) his 27 year to life sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, (2) his right to due process

under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because he was actually innocent, (3) the

prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence also in violation of his right to due process,

and (4) he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in violation of the

Sixth Amendment. [Doc. No. 13, p. 1.] On May 13, 2003, Magistrate Judge James F. Stiven

issued a report and recommendation for denial of these claims. [Doc. No. 13.] On October 24,

2003, the Court overruled Petitioner’s objections to the report and recommendation and denied the

petition . [Doc. No. 17.] The Clerk entered judgment on October 29, 2003. [Doc. No. 18.] 

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability was denied. [Doc. Nos. 18 and 23.] 

Case 3:02-cv-01245-IEG-JFS Document 26 Filed 05/19/08 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 - 02cv1245

Petitioner now moves the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to reconsider its final order

denying his petition. Petitioner argues the Court erred in rejecting his claim that his sentence

violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner argues his

sentence of 27 years to life under the Three Strikes Law for the crime of vehicle theft is grossly

disproportionate. 

Rule 60(b)(6) permits the Court to grant relief only where “extraordinary circumstances

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” United

States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). The rule is to be

“used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” Id.; see also Hamilton v.

Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (considering use of Rule 60(b)(6) in the context of a

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Petitioner raised most of the arguments set forth in his current

motion in the earlier proceedings, and the Court rejected those arguments. To the extent Petitioner

now raises new arguments, he points to no “extraordinary circumstances” which prevented him

from raising such arguments earlier. Hamilton, 374 F.3d at 825. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:02-cv-01245-IEG-JFS Document 26 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 2