Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01580/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01580-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MONTUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-98-1580 LKK JFM P

vs.

G. A. MUELLER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Judgment was entered in this action on March 16,

2001, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal on November 4, 2002. On December 9, 2004,

petitioner filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the judgment entered

this action, and on February 1, 2005, he filed an amended Rule 60(b) motion. On August 24,

2005, this court adopted in full findings and recommendations by the magistrate judge, construed

petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive habeas corpus petition, and denied the

motion on the ground that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had denied

petitioner leave to proceed with a second or successive petition.

On September 2, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the August

24, 2005 order, together with a proposed habeas corpus petition now styled as a petition pursuant

Case 2:98-cv-01580-LKK -JFM Document 111 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner contends that the court of appeals has given him authorization to

present his challenges in a § 2241 petition and that the rules governing second or successive

petitions to not apply to petitions brought under that section.

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s July 8, 2005 findings and

recommendations, which have been adopted in full by this court, petitioner may not proceed with

this second or successive challenge to the California Board of Prison Terms’ 1997 decision to

deny him parole, whether that challenge is presented as a Rule 60(b) motion, a second or

successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

(See Findings and Recommendations, filed July 8, 2005, at 2-3 & n.4.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s September 2, 2005

motion for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: September 20, 2005. 

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/mont1580.mrc

Case 2:98-cv-01580-LKK -JFM Document 111 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2