Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01446-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant petition was filed on September 12, 2014, challenging proceedings against him in 

the state court for violations of the California’s Vehicle Code. (Doc. 1). On September 30, 2014, the 

Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed as completely 

unexhausted. (Doc. 4). On October 28, 2014, Petitioner filed a response in which he argued that the 

only entity with jurisdiction over him was God, but otherwise failing to address exhaustion. (Doc. 5). 

On November 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations to dismiss the 

petition as unexhausted. (Doc. 6). Over Petitioner’s objections, on December 10, 2014, this Court 

adopted those Findings and Recommendations, entered judgment against Petitioner, and ordered the 

file closed. (Docs. 8; 9). On February 11, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion, which is styled as 

BARRY FRANK WILSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01446-LJO-JLT

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR REQUEST 

FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF QUO 

WARRANTO (Doc. 10)

Case 1:14-cv-01446-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/25/15 Page 1 of 4
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

a request for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, arguing in essence that the state court lacks 

jurisdiction over Petitioner to prosecute purported violations of the California’s Vehicle Code. (Doc. 

10). 

DISCUSSION

A. Writs of Quo Warranto

Petitioner lacks standing to proceed with a request for issuance of a writ of quo warranto in this 

Court. “Quo warranto is an ancient writ used by the King of England to determine if an individual's 

claim to an office or franchise is well-founded. If the individual is found to be in unlawful possession 

of the office, the individual is ousted.” Jesinger v. Nev. Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th 

Cir.1994) (citations omitted). It is a right of action “inherently in the Government ...” Territory of 

Neb. v. Lockwood, 70 U.S. 236, 240 (1865). Because “[i]t appears from case law that in federal court, 

the writ may be sought only by the United States, and not by private individuals,” Petitioner does not 

have standing to bring a writ of quo warranto under federal law and therefore has not asserted a proper 

basis for federal jurisdiction over his quo warranto claim. Allah v. Robinson, 2007 WL 2220258, at 

*2 (W.D.Wash. July 31, 2007) (citing Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 

(1933))(emphasis supplied); see also United States v. Machado, 306 F.Supp. 995, 1000 

(N.D.Cal.1969); Bhambra v. County of Nevada, 2010 WL 3258836, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2010). 

Moreover, as mentioned, such writs are properly brought only in connection with proceedings 

over an individual’s right to hold an office or position. Johnson, 289 U.S. at 502; Newman v. Frizell, 

238 U.S. 537 (1915); Barany v. Butler, 670 F.2d 726, 735 (7th Cir. 1982); Cizek v. Davis, 2010 WL 

5437286, *3 (M.D. Penn. Nov. 29, 2010). Since Petitioner is not challenging the state judges’ right to 

hold their offices as Superior Court judges, but only their statutory and constitutional authority to 

preside over proceedings brought pursuant to California’s Vehicle Code, a writ of quo warrant is 

inappropriate.

B. Motion For Reconsideration

Liberally construing Petitioner’s motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 

60(b), the Court will deny that motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the 

reconsideration of final orders of the district court. Rule 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a 

Case 1:14-cv-01446-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/25/15 Page 2 of 4
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

party from a final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; 

(5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of 

the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable 

time, in any event “not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or 

taken.” Id.

Moreover, when filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule 230(j) requires a party to show 

the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Motions to reconsider are 

committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 

(D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party 

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Petitioner failed to meet any of the requirements for granting a motion for 

reconsideration: He has not shown “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” he has not 

shown the existence of either newly discovered evidence or fraud; he has not established that the 

judgment is either void or satisfied; and, finally, Petitioner has not presented any other reasons 

justifying relief from judgment. Moreover, pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules, Petitioner has not

shown “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). (Emphasis 

supplied). 

Indeed, many of the contentions Petitioner raises in the instant motion are either similar to or 

identical to the issues raised in the original petition and in his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations. In the order adopting the Findings and Recommendations, the Court 

expressly considered those points and rejected them. (Doc. 8). Moreover, Petitioner does not allege 

or establish that the contentions contained in the instant motion constitute “newly discovered 

evidence” under Rule 60(b) that would entitle him to reconsideration or relief from judgment. 

Case 1:14-cv-01446-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

In sum, Petitioner has provided no evidence or circumstances that would satisfy any of the 

requirements of Rule 60(b), and therefore his motion for reconsideration must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for writ of quo warranto

(Doc. 10), is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-01446-LJO-JLT Document 11 Filed 02/25/15 Page 4 of 4