Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_00-cv-01065/USCOURTS-casd-3_00-cv-01065-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD VICTOR SHELL,

Petitioner,

No. 00-cv-1065-BTM-RBB

ORDER CONSTRUING RULE

60(b) MOTION AS A

SUCCESSIVE § 2254

PETITION AND DENYING THE

MOTION

v.

RICK HILL, as Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on 

March 9, 2001 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docs. 16, 19, 20.) The Ninth

Circuit affirmed on September 19, 2002. (Doc. 30.) In an Order dated

January 31, 2003, the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s motion to file a late

petition for rehearing, recalled the mandate, and denied Petitioner’s petition

for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. (Doc. 34.) The mandate was

reissued and the appeal was closed. (Id.) About eight years later, on

December 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), which this Court construed as a successive

habeas corpus petition and denied it on December 16, 2010. (Doc. 38.) On

January 4, 2011, this Court denied petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability. (Doc. 40.) On May 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit also denied a

certificate of appealability. (Doc. 42.) In June 2013, Petitioner again filed a

1

Case 3:00-cv-01065-BTM-RBB Document 48 Filed 09/03/14 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

27

28

request for a certificate of appealability with the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 43),

which was denied as duplicative on September 9, 2013 (Doc. 45). On

September 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for leave

to file a successive § 2254 petition and further ordered, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), that “No petition for rehearing or motion for

consideration shall be filed or entertained in this case.” (Doc. 46.) 

Petitioner has nonetheless filed another motion for relief pursuant to

Rule 60(b)(6). (Doc. 47.) “Rule 60(b)(6) . . . permits reopening when the

movant shows ‘any . . . reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgement’ other than the more specific circumstances set out in Rules

60(b)(1)-(5).” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005). A Rule 60(b)

motion may not, however, be used to circumvent the rules for filing

successive petitions. Id. at 531. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that a

Rule 60(b) motion filed after the denial of a habeas corpus petition on the

merits that seeks to add new grounds for relief is a successive petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). Id. Petitioner has not obtained the permission of the

Court of Appeals to file a successive petition as required by 28 U.S.C. §

2244. As stated in the December 16, 2010 and September 26, 2013 orders,

the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s motion. The Court

accordingly construes the motion as a successive § 2254 petition and

DENIES the motion. A certificate of applicability is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 3, 2014

__________________________

Barry Ted Moskowitz

Chief United States District Judge

2

Case 3:00-cv-01065-BTM-RBB Document 48 Filed 09/03/14 Page 2 of 2