Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01358/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01358-2/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GRIFFIN,

Petitioner,

vs.

CONNIE GIPSON, Warden (A), California 1

State Prison, Corcoran

Respondent.

No. 2:11-cv-01358-JKS

ORDER

[Re: Motions at Docket Nos. 21, 22]

At Docket No. 21 David Griffin, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a document

entitled “Objection to Magistrates Report and Recommendations,” and at Docket No. 22 a

request to appoint counsel. The record indicates that on October 11, 2012, this Court entered its

Memorandum Decision and Judgment denying Griffin’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . On November 28, 2012, Griffin filed an untitled document requesting 2

a thirty-day extension to respond. Treating Griffin’s untitled document at Docket No. 19 as a 3

motion to extend the time to appeal, this Court extended Griffin’s time to file a notice of appeal

through December 17, 2012. This Court lacks authority to further extend the time within which 4

to appeal.5

Motion at Docket No. 21

 Connie Gipson, Warden (A), California State Prison, Corcoran, is substituted for G. D.

1

Lewis, Warden, Pelican Bay State Prison. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

 Docket Nos. 17, 18. 2

 Docket No. 19. 3

 Docket No. 20. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). 4

 Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1). 5

Case 2:11-cv-01358-JKS Document 23 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 4
Griffin has mistakenly construed the Memorandum Decision entered by this Court as the

Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Griffin’s “Objection to 6

Magistrates Report and Recommendations,” is inapposite. Because this court must liberally 7

construe a prisoner’s pro se pleadings, this Court will treat Griffin’s document filed at Docket 8

No. 21 as a timely motion for Relief from a Judgment of Order under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b). That rule provides:

(b) GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR

PROCEEDING. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newlydiscovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previouslycalled intrinsic or extrinsic),misrepresentation,

or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no

longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Nothing in Griffin’s motion justifies the granting of relief on the basis of either: mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (Rule 60(b)(1)); newly discovered evidence (Rule

60(b)(2)); fraud or misrepresentation (Rule 60(b)(3)); that the judgment is void (Rule 60(b)(4));

or that the judgment has been satisfied, reversed, or vacated (Rule 60(b)(5)). Only extraordinary

 This matter was withdrawn from consideration by the Magistrate Judge. Docket No. 16. 6

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 7

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 8

952, 958 (9th Cir. 2010).

2

Case 2:11-cv-01358-JKS Document 23 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 4
circumstances justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b) is neither a substitute for appeal, 9 10

nor a vehicle to rehash arguments that have been made and rejected, which is considered a

successive application for relief under § 2254. Accordingly, Griffin is not entitled to relief 11

from the judgment entered herein under Rule 60.

Motion at Docket 22

There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Appointment 12

of counsel is not required in a habeas corpus proceeding in the absence of an order granting

discovery or an evidentiary hearing. This Court may appoint counsel under the Criminal Justice 13

Act in this case if the court determines that the interests of justice so require. Because this case 14

has been fully briefed and adjudicated on the merits, and the Court determined that no Certificate

of Appealability should be granted, this Court does not so determine.

See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (“[O]ur cases have required a movant 9

seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening

of a final judgment.”).

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 10

See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530-34. 11

See Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 336-37 (2007) (citing Coleman v. Thompson,

12

501 U.S. 722, 756-57 (1991).

See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts, Rule 6(a), 8(c)

13

(2012).

 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 14

954 (9th Cir. 1983) (“In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district

court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner

to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”).

3

Case 2:11-cv-01358-JKS Document 23 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the “Objection to Magistrates Report and

Recommendations,” filed at Docket No. 21, treated as a motion for relief from a final judgment

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the motion to appoint counsel at Docket No. 22 is

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court declines to issue a Certificate of

Appealability. Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the 15

Court of Appeals.16

Dated: January 4, 2013.

/s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 705 (2004) (“To obtain a 15

certificate of appealability a prisoner must ‘demonstrat[e] that jurists of reason could disagree

with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the

issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (quoting Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 325, 327 (2003))).

See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1. 16

4

Case 2:11-cv-01358-JKS Document 23 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 4