Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02108/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02108-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-02108-VC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT OR ORDER AND

REAFFIRMING ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Dkt. No. 23

Petitioner Condalee Morris filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a 

prison rules violation hearing which resulted in the forfeiture of 150 days of good time credits. On 

April 8, 2015, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely and 

judgment was entered. On April 27, 2015, Morris filed a motion for relief from judgment or order 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). This motion is fully briefed and, for the reasons 

stated below, the Court grants the motion but affirms the order granting the motion to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 60(b) provides for relief from judgment 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 in time to move for a new trial; (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)(6) is a “catchall provision” that applies only when the reason for granting 

relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in Rule 60. Samish Indian Tribe v. 

Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005). “It has been used sparingly as an equitable 

remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances 

Case 3:14-cv-02108-VC Document 28 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision is not 

adequate grounds for relief. Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 

1341 (9th Cir. 1981).

DISCUSSION

Morris moves for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), arguing that the Court was mistaken because 

it did not consider timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). It was proper not to consider section 

2244(d)(2) in the order of dismissal because Morris did not mention it in his opposition to the 

motion to dismiss. However, in the interests of justice, the Court addresses Morris’ argument 

under Rule 60(b)(6), the catchall provision for equitable relief.

In the order of dismissal, the Court stated, “It is unclear how Morris construes the 

dismissal of his civil rights claim as affecting the statute of limitations for his federal habeas 

petition.” Now, Morris explains that his federal civil rights claim tolled his federal petition by 

application of section 2244(d)(2).

Section 2244(d)(2) states:

The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent 

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period 

of limitation under this subsection.

Section 2244(d)(2) tolls the time during which a properly filed state habeas petition is 

pending in state court. It does not toll the time during which a federal civil rights claim is 

pending. Therefore, Morris’ argument that his petition is timely under section 2244(d)(2) is 

wrong.

In the motion to dismiss, the Court stated, “Because Morris . . . has not shown that 

statutory or equitable tolling apply or that he is actually innocent, his petition is untimely.” In his 

reply to his motion for relief from judgment, Morris argues that he is actually innocent, citing a 

June 11, 2014 Order in Morris v. Sandoval, No. C 12-6132 LHK (PR). In the interests of justice, 

the Court addresses this argument.

A federal court may hear the merits of untimely claims if the failure to hear the claims 

would constitute a “miscarriage of justice.” McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1931-32 

Case 3:14-cv-02108-VC Document 28 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(2013). The “miscarriage of justice” exception is limited to habeas petitioners who can show that 

“a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually 

innocent.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995); Johnson v. Knowles, 541 F.3d 933, 936-38 

(9th Cir. 2008) (“[t]he miscarriage of justice exception is limited to those extraordinary cases 

where the petitioner asserts his innocence and establishes that the court cannot have confidence in 

the contrary finding of guilt”). A petitioner must “show that it is more likely than not that no 

reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 

327. This exacting standard “permits review only in the ‘extraordinary’ case,” but it “does not 

require absolute certainty about the petitioner’s guilt or innocence.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 

538 (2006). 

In Morris v. Sandoval, case no. C 12-6132 LHK (PR), Morris asserted civil rights claims 

against the officers involved in a pepper spray incident. This incident was the subject of a rules 

violation hearing, which is the subject of the due process claim in this habeas petition. In the civil 

rights case, Judge Koh dismissed without prejudice Morris’ due process claim because it was 

barred by Heck v. Humphrey. See case no. C 12-6132 LHK (PR), July 16, 2013 Order of Service, 

Dkt. No 11 at 2-3. Morris’ excessive force claims were served. In the June 11, 2014 Order, Judge 

Koh denied, in part, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claims. 

The docket of case no. C 12-6132 LHK (PR) shows that the excessive force claims are still 

pending.

Judge Koh’s June 11, 2014 Order addressing Morris’ excessive force claims does not 

support Morris’ argument that he was “actually innocent” of the due process claim, which was not 

litigated. It is arguable that, if Morris could show he was actually innocent of the rules violation, 

it would be a miscarriage of justice not to adjudicate the merits of his due process claim. 

However, at most, the order denying summary judgment shows that Morris raised a genuine issue 

of material fact on whether the defendants used excessive force by pepper spraying him which, in 

effect, shows he raised a genuine issue of material fact on whether he committed a rules violation. 

Raising a genuine issue of material fact does not support a showing of actual innocence, on any 

claim. For this reason, Morris’ showing of actual innocence is insufficient to allow him to pass 

Case 3:14-cv-02108-VC Document 28 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

through the Schlup gateway and have his otherwise time-barred due process claim heard on the 

merits. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Morris’ motion for relief from judgment or order under Rule 

60(b) is granted. Upon considering the new arguments Morris raises in his motion, the Court 

reaffirms its order granting the motion to dismiss. This order terminates docket number 23.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: July 14, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02108-VC Document 28 Filed 07/14/15 Page 4 of 5
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONDALEE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02108-VC 

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 July 14, 2015, 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.

Condalee Morris ID: V-96203

Salinas Valley State Prison D-1-112

31625 Hwy 101

Soledad, CA 92960 

Dated: July 14, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Kristen Melen, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable VINCE CHHABRIA

Case 3:14-cv-02108-VC Document 28 Filed 07/14/15 Page 5 of 5