Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01831/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01831-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Audrey King
Defendant
Michael B. Williams
Plaintiff

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

AUDREY KING, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 14-cv-01831-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT 

Re: Dkt. No. 18 

Petitioner brought a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the ongoing proceedings in San Francisco County Superior 

Court to civilly commit him under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), see

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. The court denied the petition on the merits. 

Petitioner has now filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). 

Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be 

made within a "reasonable time," and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one 

year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion 

does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation, see id.; therefore, a 

party is not relieved of its obligation to comply with the court's orders simply by filing a 

Rule 60(b) motion. See Hook v. Arizona Dep't of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397, 1404 (9th 

Cir. 1997). 

Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is 

shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's 

Case 4:14-cv-01831-PJH Document 19 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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 Californi

a

decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has 

been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J 

v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for 

parties to seek relief from a judgment when "it is no longer equitable that the judgment 

should have prospective application," or when there is any other reason justifying relief 

from judgment. Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 853-54 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). Rule 60(b) is not intended to remedy the effects of a deliberate 

and independent litigation decision that a party later comes to regret through second 

thoughts or subsequently-gained knowledge. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 

F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir. 2006) (denying reconsideration to a party who had settled and 

then discovered that her attorney had made legal errors in advising her to settle). 

 Petitioner presents similar arguments from his petition that the court already 

addressed and denied. He also argues that he is entitled to relief pursuant to McNeil v. 

Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245 (1972). In Mcneil, the Court found that an 

inmate's continued detention beyond the termination of his sentence may violate the 

Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Id. at 246. 

In this case, petitioner is being held under the SVPA and is not entitled to relief. 

“The SVPA does not specify a time by which a trial on a commitment proceeding under 

the SVPA must be commenced or concluded.” People v. Sanders, 203 Cal. App. 4th 

839, 846 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012); see also Litmon v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 

1170-71 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (“the SVPA sets no time period within which the probable 

cause hearing preceding a recommitment must be held. And, once probable cause is 

found, the SVPA sets no time period within which the trial must be held . . . .”) ; see also 

Seeboth v. Allenby, 789 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2015) (lack of a time provision in the SVPA 

for recommitment trial does not deprive SVPs equal protection of the laws). Petitioner 

presents no other arguments to entitle him to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Case 4:14-cv-01831-PJH Document 19 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

rea

(“C

CO

Da

\\CA

Petition

asonable ju

COA”) is DE

OA). 

IT IS S

ated: Decem

ANDOAK\Data\U

ner’s motio

urists would

ENIED. See

 

SO ORDER

mber 8, 201

sers\PJHALL\_p

n for relief f

 not find the

e Slack v. M

RED. 

15 

psp\2014\2014_0

3

CONCLU

from judgm

e result her

McDaniel, 5

01831_Williams_

USION 

ment (Docke

re debatabl

529 U.S. 47

__

PH

Un

_v_King_(PSP)\1

et No. 18) is

le, a certific

73, 484-85 

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

4-cv-01831-PJH

s DENIED.

cate of appe

(2000) (sta

_________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

H-_60b.docx 

 Because 

ealability 

andard for 

______

N

udge 

Case 4:14-cv-01831-PJH Document 19 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 3