Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00845/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Lee Gray
Petitioner
M. McDonald
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LEE GRAY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. MCDONALD, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0845 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner has, however,

had a previous case attacking the same judgment, Gray v. Runnels, C 01-2880 PJH (PR). 

That case was dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations and the dismissal was

affirmed on appeal. A subsequent habeas petition directed to the same conviction, Gray v.

Felker, 09-2461 PJH (PR), was dismissed by this court as second or successive. Petitioner

did not appeal that dismissal. 

Although the current petition is on the court’s form for new habeas petitions and

petitioner has not put a case number in the caption, in petitioner’s list of issues he has

inserted “(Petitioner Motion for Reconsideration of Habeas Under Rule 60(b).)” An

attachment to the petition is captioned “Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Habeas

Corpus Under Rule 60(b).” The attachment carries a case number, “970032-9,” which

appears to be that of his criminal case in state court; the attachment is, however, headed

“United States District Court for the Northen District of California.”

It may be that petitioner is attempting to file a motion to vacate under Rule 60(b) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, although his failure to say what judgment he wants

vacated or provide a case number is unhelpful. Even if the petition were treated as a

Case 4:10-cv-00845-PJH Document 5 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion to vacate under Rule 60(b), however, it still would be second or successive. This is

because the United States Supreme Court has held that a Rule 60(b) motion that asserts a

basis for relief from a state court's judgment of conviction, is, if not in substance a

successive habeas petition, at least similar enough that failing to subject it to the same

requirements would be inconsistent with the habeas statute; in short, labeling a filing as a

Rule 60(b) motion does not avoid the rules for second or successive petitions. See

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005). 

This petition (or motion) therefore is second or successive. A habeas petitioner may

not file a second or successive petition unless he or she first obtains from the appropriate

United States Court of Appeals an order authorizing the filing. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not obtained such an order from the Ninth Circuit. The

petition accordingly is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new petition if petitioner

obtains the necessary order.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.10\GRAY0845.DSM.wpd

Case 4:10-cv-00845-PJH Document 5 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2