Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01693/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01693-0/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

1

 Petitioner’s filing was entitled “Request for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure: Rule 60(b)(2); (6); and Rule 60(d)(1).” For the reasons explained below, the Court

construed the request as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

- 1 - 10cv1693

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL L. TOLLIVER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-1693-H (WVG)

ORDER 

(1) DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION UNDER RULE 60(b); 

(2) DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY; &

(3) GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO APPEAL IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.

RICK HILL, et al.,

Respondents.

On August 9, 2010, Petitioner Darryl L. Tolliver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 (Doc. No. 1.) On

August 20, 2010, the Court summarily dismissed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A) after concluding that Petitioner was seeking to challenge the same conviction

he had challenged in his prior federal habeas petition filed on April 9, 1999 in case No.

99cv0719. (Doc. No. 2.) On September 20, 2010, Petitioner filed an appeal from the Court’s

August 20, 2010 order. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court construes the filing as both an appeal and as

a motion for reconsideration under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On September

20, 2010, Petitioner also filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 5.)

Case 3:10-cv-01693-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/04/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10cv1693

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The

Court also DENIES the request for certificate of appealability, and GRANTS the motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Background

 On April 9, 1999, Petitioner Darryl L. Tolliver, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

in this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in case No. 99cv0719. In that petition,

Petitioner challenged his conviction in San Diego Superior Court case No. S035319. On

January 26, 2001, this Court dismissed the petition as untimely. (See Doc. No. 35 in case No.

99cv0719.) Petitioner appealed that determination and filed a request for a certificate of

appealability (“COA”). (Doc. Nos. 37, 39 in case No. 99cv0719.) This Court denied the

motion for COA on February 12, 2001. (Doc. No. 40 in case No. 99cv0719.) The Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals denied a COA on April 19, 2001. (Doc. No. 46 in case No.

99cv0719.) On November 9, 2001, Petitioner filed a request for leave of court to file a motion

under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure P. 60(b), which the Court construed as a successive

petition and denied because Petitioner had failed to get permission from the Ninth Circuit to

file a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). (Doc. No. 47 in case No.

99cv0719.) Petitioner appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, which directed this Court

to grant or deny a COA. (Doc. No. 57 in case No. 99cv0719.) On February 15, 2002, the

Court denied a COA. (Doc. No. 58 in case No. 99cv0719.) Petitioner then filed a motion to

vacate judgment, which this Court denied on August 6, 2007. (Doc. Nos. 65, 66 in case No.

99cv0719.) Petitioner filed a motion for COA, which was denied by this Court on August 31,

2007, and by the Ninth Circuit on June 23, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 68, 70, 75 in case No. 99cv0719.)

On August 9, 2010, Petitioner filed another request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b).

(Doc. No. 1.) The Court construed the request as a successive petition, and directed the Clerk

to open this case. On August 20, 2010, the Court summarily dismissed this case without

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and directed Petitioner to obtain an Order

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing the district court to consider a successive

petition. (Doc. No. 2 at 2.) The Court also directed the Clerk to mail Petitioner a blank

Case 3:10-cv-01693-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/04/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 10cv1693

application for leave to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together

with a copy of the Court’s order. (Id.) Petitioner did not obtain leave from the Court of

Appeals; instead, on September 20, 2010, he filed an appeal from the Court’s August 20, 2010

order. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court construes the filing as both an appeal and as a motion for

reconsideration under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 

 Rule 60(b) motions in habeas cases are treated as successive petitions if the factual

predicate for the motion also states a claim for successive petition. Ortiz v. Stewart, 195 F.3d

520, 520 (9th Cir. 1999); Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 1998). Because

the Court properly construed Petitioner’s August 9, 2010 request as a successive petition, the

Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). 

“If no express request is made for certificate of appealability, the notice of appeal shall

be deemed to constitute a request for a certificate.” United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268,

1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate will not be issued unless “the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Court’s

denial of a Rule 60(b) relief does not concern the denial of a constitutional right. However,

as the Court previously instructed, Petitioner may bring a request before the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider his Rule 60(b)

application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request for

certificate of appealability. The Court GRANTS leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion, and DENIES

a certificate of appealability. The Court GRANTS leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2010

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:10-cv-01693-H-WVG Document 7 Filed 10/04/10 Page 3 of 3