Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02613/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02613-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Nason
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

No. CR 95-319 SI

ORDER DENYING 60(b) MOTION AND

DENYING MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE

OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Petitioner Frank Nason has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure to vacate the Court’s order denying petitioner’s § 2255 motion. Petitioner has also filed a

motion for disclosure of exculpatory evidence which is related to the Rule 60(b) motion. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motions.

This Court entered judgment against petitioner on June 6, 2001, and sentenced petitioner to

twenty-five years imprisonment. On June 28, 2004, petitioner filed a motion to vacate and set aside his

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. By order entered August 24, 2005, the Court denied the § 2255

motion on timeliness grounds. The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that the one year statute of

limitations should be tolled because he did not learn of certain facts 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. 

Petitioner has filed the instant motion under Rule 60(b) seeking 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. To the extent that petitioner’s motion asserts this ground, the Court denies the motion. The

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

Case 3:04-cv-02613-SI Document 4 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

 The government’s Rule 35 motion states that Rausini denied soliciting Ellenberger’s murder

and instead said the murder was petitioner’s idea. See Government’s Motion to Reduce Sentence After

Defendant’s Motion to compel Pursuant to FRCP 35(b) at 3.

2

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.1

Petitioner’s June 2004 § 2255 motion stated that petitioner was aware that Rausini would be filing a

motion claiming that Rausini did not solicit Ellenberger’s murder. See Traverse at 8-9; August 24, 2005

Order at 2. Thus, this information contained in the Rule 35 motion is not new, and does not alter the

Court’s conclusion that petitioner’s § 2255 motion was untimely. 

Petitioner raises a number of other contentions in the Rule 60(b) motion that are actually

challenges to his plea and sentence; many of these contentions were advanced in the original § 2255

motion. 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).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment.

The Court also DENIES petitioner’s motion for disclosure of exculpatory evidence. (Docket Nos. 1474

and 1475 in CR 95-319).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 ___________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02613-SI Document 4 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2