Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06047/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-06047-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gail Lewis
Respondent
Johnney Ramey
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNEY RAMEY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

GAIL LEWIS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:98-CV-06047 OWW SMS HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

[Doc. #103]

On September 4, 2003, the undersigned issued an order dismissing Petitioner’s federal

habeas petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Judgment was entered the next day and

Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On September 6, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the

decision of this Court.

Three years later, on July 7, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit.

The motion was denied as untimely. On July 22, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration

of this Court’s order dismissing the petition. That motion also was denied as untimely. 

On February 10, 2010, Petitioner filed a pleading in this Court in which Petitioner again

requested relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioner was informed that his request had already been considered and his motion was denied. 

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on February 18, 2010. On May 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit

issued an order remanding the matter to this Court to issue or decline to issue a certificate of

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:98-cv-06047-OWW -SMS Document 105 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 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

appealability. The Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability on June 2, 2010.

On July 26, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion entitled: “Writ of mandate, mandamus,

error coram nobis, under Federal Rule of 60(b)(6), in the denial of appeal in answering a

constitutional, statutory and precendent [sic] case law standard under Jiminez v. Quarterman (2009)

129 S.CT. 681, 685; declaratory relief.” It appears Petitioner seeks reconsideration of an order

denying an appeal. Petitioner’s arguments are completely without merit.

First, Petitioner contends that the undersigned lacks jurisdiction to render a decision because

the case was reassigned on remand to Judge “J. Vasquez.” Petitioner is mistaken. This case was and

is still assigned to the undersigned. When the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter to this Court for the

limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability, the Clerk’s Office reassigned the

matter to Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder because Magistrate Judge Hollis G. Best had passed

away since this case had last been active. Nevertheless, the undersigned was the assigned district

judge then, and is still the assigned district judge. Petitioner apparently confused the signature of a

court clerk who docketed the minute order as a new judge assigned to the case.

Second, Petitioner contends his time to appeal has been reset. This also is incorrect. As

previously stated, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s appeal on September 6, 2006. The remand of

May 26, 2010, was solely for the purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability with

respect to an order denying a motion for reconsideration. This remand did not reset any deadlines for

filing an appeal. As this Court has stated repeatedly, this case is closed. Petitioner’s repeated

attempts to relitigate his case have become abusive of the court process. Accordingly, any further

filings in this case will be STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:98-cv-06047-OWW -SMS Document 105 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2