Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02613/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02613-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Nason
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

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

1

 By order filed November 29, 2006, the Court denied petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief

from judgment, and by order filed December 6, 2006, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to

supplement the Rule 60(b) motion. Petitioner then moved to disqualify the undersigned judge; that

motion was referred to Judge Breyer. Judge Breyer denied the motion to disqualify by order filed

January 12, 2007. Petitioner then filed numerous documents, including two motions to vacate the

November 29 and December 6, 2006 orders, and a motion for leave to supplement the Rule 60(b)

motion. The Court denied those motions in an order filed February 6, 2007.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK NASON,

Petitioner,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. /

No. C 04-2613 SI

 CR 95-319 SI

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner has filed a request for a certificate of appealability regarding the Court’s orders

denying petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion and related discovery, and regarding Judge Breyer’s order

denying petitioner’s motion to disqualify the undersigned judge.1

The Court denies petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability because petitioner has not

made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The

background for petitioner’s current Rule 60(b) motion is that this Court entered judgment against him

on June 6, 2001, and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. On June 28, 2004, petitioner filed

a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate and set aside his sentence. By order entered August 24, 2005, this

Court denied the § 2255 motion on grounds of timeliness. The Court rejected petitioner’s contention

that the one year statute of limitations should be tolled because he did not learn about certain facts

Case 3:04-cv-02613-SI Document 10 Filed 04/12/07 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

supporting his claims until June 2004. Both this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied

petitioner’s requests for a certificate of appealability as to this Court’s August 24, 2005 order. 

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion sought to set aside the August 24, 2005 order on the ground that

there is “newly discovered evidence” that shows that the initial habeas petition was timely. The “newly

discovered evidence” cited by petitioner – a March 9, 2006 Rule 35 motion filed by the government

regarding co-defendant Rausini stating that Rausini denied ordering the murder of John Ellenberger –

does not contain any new information, nor does it exonerate petitioner in any way. Petitioner also raised

a number of other contentions in the Rule 60(b) motion that were actually challenges to his plea and

sentence; many of these contentions were advanced in the original § 2255 motion. As the Court

informed petitioner in the November 29, 2006 order, to the extent that petitioner wishes to raise these

contentions, petitioner must seek permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second

or successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

The Court also finds that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a constitutional

violation with regard to the denial of the motion for disqualification, and incorporates by reference

Judge Breyer’s January 12, 2007 order.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES petitioner’s request for a certificate

of appealability. (Docket No. 1565).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02613-SI Document 10 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 2