Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06349/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06349-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

STUART J. RYAN, MIKE EVANS, )

Wardens, )

)

)

)

Respondents. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-6349 OWW/TAG

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION (Doc. 32)

On September 10, 2004, petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

By Order filed on September 27, 2005, the petition was dismissed

with prejudice as untimely. Judgment for respondents was entered

on September 27, 2005. Petitioner’s request for a certificate of

appealability was denied by Order filed on October 20, 2005. On

January 19, 2006, the Ninth Circuit also denied petitioner’s

request for a certificate of appealability.

On September 20, 2006, petitioner filed a “Motion for

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 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

The citation to Brannan is incorrectly stated in petitioner’s 1

motion. 

2

Reconsideration” in which petitioner requests “a reconsideration

of the case based on a infraction Article 60 of the Nations

Decree In Vienna [sic]” and citing Brannan v. United Student Aid

Funds Inc., 94 F.3d 1260 (9 Cir.1996). Attached to the motion th 1

for reconsideration is a letter in the Spanish language dated

June 29, 2006.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is DISMISSED. 

Petitioner did not raise the claim asserted in the motion for

reconsideration as a claim for relief in his petition for writ of

habeas corpus and is not seeking reconsideration of a ruling made

in denying the petition. Therefore, the motion for

reconsideration must be construed as a second or successive

motion pursuant to Section 2254 governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 

Thompson v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 921 (9 Cir.), cert. denied,

th

524 U.S. 965 (1998)(“[W]hen the factual predicate for a Rule

60(b) motion also states a claim for a successive petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) ..., the Rule 60(b) motion should be treated

as a successive habeas petition.”). Jurisdiction in the district

court to consider the merits of the motion is lacking. United

States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 611, 664 (9 Cir.1998). In order to th

proceed with the claim raised in the motion for reconsideration,

petitioner first must move for and receive from the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals an order authorizing the district court to

consider the application. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A).

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 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

3

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06349-OWW -TAG Document 33 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 3