Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00864/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00864-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Calderon
Respondent
Fred Mott
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED MOTT,

Petitioner,

 v.

ARTHUR CALDERON,

Respondents. ___________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-0864 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY; GRANTING

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS ON APPEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 71-74)

On February 27, 2003, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner

thereafter was granted leave to amend the petition to add an additional claim for relief, for a

total of twenty claims. In an Order filed June 12, 2006 (“Order”), the amended petition was

denied on its merits and judgment was entered against petitioner. On September 19, 2006,

petitioner filed a notice of appeal, attached to which is a “Motion to Vacate Order and

Judgment” pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in support of

which motion petitioner has submitted a “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

Opposition to District Court’s Order and Judgment Denying Habeas Corpus Relief” and an

“Objection and Challenge to the District Court’s Harmless Error Analysis and Adjudication

in the Instant Habeas Corpus Proceedings.”

Case 3:03-cv-00864-MMC Document 78 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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

In his “Objection and Challenge to the District Court’s Harmless Error Analysis and

Adjudication,” petitioner argues, inter alia, that the Court erred in denying the petition

because “the District Court is a woman.” 

2

In a separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has amended its June 12,

2006 Order to incorporate several changes proposed by petitioner in his separately-filed

“Motion to Amend the Findings and Statements of Fact Pursuant to Rule 52(b).” Such

changes, however, do not in any way warrant reconsideration of the Court’s decision under

Rule 60(b). 

2

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 decision; (3) fraud

by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (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). Subparagraph (6), although broadly worded, requires a showing

that the grounds justifying relief are extraordinary. See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp.

v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Petitioner does not indicate the provision of Rule 60(b) under which reconsideration is

warranted. Petitioner sets forth no new evidence; he identifies no mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect, nor does he allege any fraud by the adverse party or voiding of

the judgment. Petitioner fails to provide any other reason justifying relief. Instead, petitioner

argues that the Court has committed “plain error” in its interpretation of the law and its

application of the law to petitioner’s claims.1

 Motions for reconsideration are not a substitute

for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. Id. In its Order

denying the petition, this Court has explained why petitioner’s numerous claims do not

provide a basis for habeas relief. To the extent petitioner wishes to pursue those claims

further, he must do so on appeal and not by a Rule 60(b) motion. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion is hereby DENIED.2

 

Also attached to the notice of appeal is a request for a certificate of appealability

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). Petitioner

has not shown, however, “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of

Case 3:03-cv-00864-MMC Document 78 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604

(2000). 

Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED. The

Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner may also seek a certificate of appealability. See

United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997).

Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is hereby

GRANTED, and his request for a second extension of time in which to file the motions

addressed above is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 71-74. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 22, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-00864-MMC Document 78 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 3