Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07198/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07198-1/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

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH LETTIER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT AYERS, JR., Warden, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7198 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR A

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY AND FOR

COUNSEL AND GRANTING IN

FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

(Docket nos. 6, 7, 9, 10)

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison in

San Quentin, California, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that (docket no. 5). Petitioner

filed an opposition to the motion (docket no. 6) and Respondent filed a reply (docket no.

7). On March 12, 2007, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition

without prejudice to Petitioner asserting the same claims in an action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, as the claims do not involve the fact or duration of Petitioner’s confinement

(docket no. 4). Petitioner now moves the Court for reconsideration under Federal Rule

Of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (docket no. 6). Petitioner has also filed a notice of appeal

and a motion seeking a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) (docket no. 7), as well as a

motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (docket no. 9) and seeking

appointment of counsel on appeal (docket no. 10).

DISCUSSION

Where the court's ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after

Case 3:06-cv-07198-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/08/08 Page 1 of 5
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

dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based on

Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from

judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N.

Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Motions for reconsideration

should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a substitute for appeal or a

means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film

Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be

made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one

year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for

reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence

could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason

justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir.1993). “Rule 60(b) [] provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from

a judgment when “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

application,” or when there is any other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v.

Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). 

In the motion, Petitioner has not met the criteria for relief from judgment on any

of these bases. Petitioner has not shown that the successful resolution of his claim is

likely to affect the duration of his confinement, since, the removal of a psychological

report in his file within the Department of Corrections that has errors, cannot be said to

“likely” accelerate his release on parole. See, Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1026

(9th Cir. 2004), Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Ramirez

v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2003) (implying that claim, which if successful

Case 3:06-cv-07198-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 5
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

would “necessarily” or “likely” accelerate the prisoner’s release on parole, must be

brought in a habeas petition). As such, Petitioner’s motion to reconsider is DENIED

(docket no. 6). 

Upon the filing of a notice of appeal and a request for a COA, the district court

shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate,

or state its reasons why a certificate should not be granted. See United States v. Asrar,

116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3)). A judge shall

grant a COA "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on

procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional

claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on

procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a

COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484; see James v. Giles, 221 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.

2000). As each of these components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find

that it can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to

resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Slack,

529 U.S. at 485. Supreme Court jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to

first resolve the procedural issue. See id. With regard to the issues before the Court,

Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484. Accordingly, the request

for a certificate of appealability is DENIED (docket no. 7). 

Case 3:06-cv-07198-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/08/08 Page 3 of 5
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 4

Additionally, Petitioner has filed a motion seeking to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal (docket no. 9). With regard to Petitioner’s application, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

provides that an appeal may not be so taken if the district court certifies that it is taken in

bad faith. The Court does not find that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Accordingly,

the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is GRANTED (docket no. 9).

However, Petitioner’s motion seeking the appointment of counsel on appeal is not

properly before this Court and the motion is DENIED without prejudice (docket no. 10). 

The Clerk of Court shall terminate all motions as decided by this order and forward this

order, along with the case file, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, where Petitioner may also seek a COA, see Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270, and

appointment of counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2008

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07198-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/08/08 Page 4 of 5
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

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH LETTIER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-07198 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 8, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Keith Lettier

E50464

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: January 8, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-07198-JSW Document 12 Filed 01/08/08 Page 5 of 5