Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01997/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01997-1/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

15-cv-1997-WQH-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT CHAVIRA,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION and 

KAMALA D. HARRIS,

Respondents.

Case No.: 15-cv-1997-WQH-BGS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are Petitioner Robert Chavira’s Motion for Relief from 

Final Judgment (ECF No. 30) and the Order of the Court of Appeals remanding this case 

to this Court to determine whether the Motion for Relief from Final Judgment includes a 

motion to extend the time to appeal (ECF No. 35).

I. Background

On September 8, 2015, Petitioner Robert Chavira filed a Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 naming J. Soto1and Kamala Harris as 

Respondents (ECF No. 1). On February 12, 2018, this Court entered an Order denying 

Chavira’s Petition. (ECF No. 22). 

On April 2, 2018, Chavira filed a Motion for Relief from Final Judgment under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) (ECF No. 30). On April 20, 2018, 

Asuncion filed a Response to the Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. (ECF No. 33). 

On May 7, 2018, Chavira filed a Reply to Asuncion’s Response. (ECF No. 34). 

 

1 Debbie Asuncion has been substituted for J. Soto under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Case 3:15-cv-01997-WQH-BGS Document 36 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

15-cv-1997-WQH-BGS

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

On March 23, 2018, Chavira filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 24). On June 26, 

2018, the Court of Appeals issued an Order stating 

[T]he notice of appeal, served on March 19, 2018 and filed on March 23, 2018, 

was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after the district 

court’s judgment entered on February 12, 2018. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); 

United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of 

timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). 

A review of the district court docket reflects that, on April 2, 2018, 

appellant filed a motion for relief from final judgment in the district court, and 

that motion remains pending. This appeal is therefore remanded to the district 

court for the limited purpose of allowing that court to determine whether 

appellant’s April 2, 2018 motion includes a motion to extend the time to 

appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), and if so, to 

rule on that motion.

(ECF No. 35 at 1–2). 

II. Remand from the Court of Appeals

After reviewing Chavira’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment, the Court 

concludes that the Motion for Relief from Final Judgment does not include any language 

that could be reasonably construed as a motion to extend the time to appeal pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).

III. Motion for Relief from Final Judgment

Chavira’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment asks the Court to annul his state 

court conviction and sentence on the grounds that the state court decision granting the 

prosecution’s motion to consolidate the charges against Chavira violated Chavira’s rights

under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 30 at 24–

33). Asuncion contends that Rule 60(b) is not the appropriate mechanism for raising such 

a claim. (ECF No. 33 at 4). Chavira contends that he is able to seek his requested relief 

under Rule 60(b). (ECF No. 34 at 4). 

When a petitioner brings a motion under Rule 60(b) that “assert[s a] federal basis 

for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction . . . such a pleading, although labeled 

a Rule 60(b) motion, is in substance a successive habeas petition and should be treated 

accordingly.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530–31 (2005). Chavira’s Motion for 

Case 3:15-cv-01997-WQH-BGS Document 36 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

15-cv-1997-WQH-BGS

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

Relief from Final Judgment seeks relief from a state court judgment based on alleged 

violations of Chavira’s rights under the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 30 at 24–

33). Consequently, the Court will treat Chavira’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment 

as a successive habeas petition. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530–31. 

 If a petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is the equivalent of a successive petition, this 

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion absent a certificate from the Ninth Circuit 

authorizing the filing of the petition. United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1065 

(9th Cir. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). The record reflects that the Ninth Circuit has not 

issued a certificate authorizing Chavira to file a successive petition raising his argument 

that the state court decision consolidating the charges against him violated his Fourteenth 

Amendment rights. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the arguments 

made in Chavira’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment. See id. 

IV. Conclusion

Chavira’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court 

is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. 

Dated: July 11, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-01997-WQH-BGS Document 36 Filed 07/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3