Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01859/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01859-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.14\01859Overton_deny-reconsideration.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. OVERTON,

Petitioner,

 v.

WARDEN, et al., 

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-01859 EJD (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 10)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration. (Docket No. 10.) For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which initiated this action. (Docket No. 1.) Petitioner was granted

several opportunities to either pay the filing fee or file an in forma pauperis

application. (Docket Nos. 4 and 6.) When he failed to do so in the time provided, on

September 24, 2014, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to pay

the filing fee. (Docket No. 8.) On October 21, 2014, Petitioner filed a pleading with

Case 5:14-cv-01859-EJD Document 16 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petitioner did not file a copy of this October 21, 2014 pleading with this

Court. 

Order Denying Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.14\01859Overton_deny-reconsideration.wpd 2

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals titled “Motion for Immediate Emergency Rel.,

Pursuant to F.R.A.P. Rule 37-1.”1

 (Docket No. 10.) 

On November 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit treated this motion as a notice of

appeal; assigned the case Court of Appeals docket number No. 14-17321; and set a

briefing schedule. (Docket No. 12 at 17–18.) The Ninth Circuit also informed

Petitioner that the deadline for payment of the docketing and filing fees had passed,

and that failure to correct this deficiency within fourteen days would result in dismissal

of the case for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 17.) 

On December 1, 2014, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case to this Court for the

limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. (Docket No. 13.) 

On February 9, 2014, this Court issued an order denying a certificate of appealability. 

(Docket No. 14.)

On March 20, 2015, the Ninth Circuit found that the notice of appeal was

ineffective, stating that Petitioner’s October 21, 2014, notice of appeal also included a

timely-filed Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) motion, which must be resolved prior to Petitioner

being able to file a notice of appeal. (Docket No. 15 at 1.) Accordingly, the Court

addresses Petitioner’s October 21, 2014 motion.

ANALYSIS 

Since it appears that Plaintiff is arguing that he attempted to comply with the

Court’s orders, the Court construes Petitioner’s October 21, 2014 filing as a motion for

relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b) provides a

mechanism for parties to seek relief from a judgment when there is any reason

justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir.

2004) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). “Rule 60(b)(6) has been used sparingly as an

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice. The rule is to be utilized only where

extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or

Case 5:14-cv-01859-EJD Document 16 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court declines to address the remaining arguments in Plaintiff’s October 21,

2014 because they have no bearing upon whether the Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s

petition for failure to pay the filing fee. For example, Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 37-1. (Docket No. 10 at 1.) Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 37 authorizes interest on a money judgment in a civil case, and

is not applicable here. On the second page of his motion, Petitioner states that he

seeks declaratory relief and alleges, without providing any details, violations of the

Federal Tort Claims Act and of a fiduciary contract, and a conspiracy to withhold

release. (Id. at 2.) It is unclear how the Federal Torts Claims Act was violated and what

fiduciary contract is at issue.

Order Denying Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.14\01859Overton_deny-reconsideration.wpd 3

correct an erroneous judgment. United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984

F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(6), a party

must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him

from proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action in a proper fashion. 

Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended on

denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Apr. 24, 2002) (citing United States v. Alpine Land

& Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993)). Mere dissatisfaction with the

court’s order or belief that the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds

for relief. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th

Cir. 1981).

In his October 21, 2014 motion, Plaintiff alleges that he attempted to comply

with the Court’s order by submitting an in forma pauperis application to the prison

trust office on July 19, 2014 “to no avail” and alleges that he has not received final

judgment.2

 (Docket No. 10 at 4.) However, almost a month later, on August 13, 2014,

the Court issued an order granting a second extension of time thereby notifying

Plaintiff that his in forma pauperis application had not been received by the Court. 

(Docket No. 6.) There is no indication that Petitioner attempted to address his filing

fee obligation in response to the Court’s August 13, 2014 order. Despite the two

extensions of time totaling five months, Petitioner neither paid the filing fee nor filed

with the Court an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Moreover, Petitioner does

not allege that he can cure this deficiency. The action was therefore appropriately

dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s submission of an in forma pauperis application

Case 5:14-cv-01859-EJD Document 16 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Reconsideration

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.14\01859Overton_deny-reconsideration.wpd 4

to this prison trust office on July 19, 2014 is not an extraordinary circumstance that

justifies relief from judgment. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

However, in the interests of justice, if Petitioner either pays the filing fee or files

with this Court a complete in forma pauperis application within thirty (30) days of this

order, the Court will reopen this case. In the meantime, this case remains closed.

The Clerk of the Court shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit.

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

6/18/2015

Case 5:14-cv-01859-EJD Document 16 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 4