Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03983/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03983-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. J. Rackley
Respondent
Darnell D. Snowden
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL D. SNOWDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

R. J. RACKLEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 12-cv-03983-SI 

ORDER DENYING RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 25

On August 11, 2014, the court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and entered 

judgment in this action. Petitioner now moves for relief from the judgment, citing Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Although his motion is far from clear, he appears to argue that this court 

incorrectly denied relief on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

conviction for robbery. He denies that he is filing a second or successive petition.

The court may relieve a party “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any of 

several listed reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The catchall provision in Rule 60(b)(6) allows relief 

for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for relief under Rule 

60(b)(6) “must be made within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Rule 60(b)(6) “vests 

power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate 

to accomplish justice. We apply this provision sparingly: [a] party is entitled to relief under Rule 

60(b)(6) where extraordinary circumstances prevented him from taking timely action to prevent or 

correct an erroneous judgment.” Foley v. Biter, 793 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

Petitioner offers no reasonable explanation for waiting twenty months to file his Rule 

60(b)(6) motion. He states that, having received the order and having completed “additional 

Case 3:12-cv-03983-SI Document 27 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

investigative efforts,” he brought his motion as soon as possible. Docket No. 25 at 1. The only 

“investigation” apparent from the motion was that petitioner had read the order denying the 

petition; no reasonable person would have needed anywhere near twenty months to read the 

twenty-page order. The motion was not filed within a reasonable time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(c)(1). The substance of the motion also is deficient. The argument in the motion is simply a 

disagreement with the court’s analysis of the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim in the order 

denying the petition. Petitioner failed to show any error in the order denying the petition, let alone 

a manifest injustice. Relief is not warranted under Rule 60(b)(6). The motion for relief from 

judgment is DENIED. (Docket # 25.)

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong” in the order denying the petition, or one in which “jurists of reason would 

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural [ruling]” in this order. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The denial of the certificate of appealability is 

without prejudice to petitioner seeking a certificate from the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03983-SI Document 27 Filed 04/28/16 Page 2 of 2