Webster v. Paramo
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- reversed — 21 Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from 22 a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: “(1) mistake, 23 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 24 reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 25 Rule 59(b); (3) fraud …, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 26 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based 27 on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is 28 no long
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Samuel A. Webster III moved to reopen his habeas corpus case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), arguing that a previous jailhouse lawyer failed to raise certain arguments. The court denied the motion, finding that the petitioner's allegations did not constitute the 'extraordinary circumstances' required for relief under the catchall provision.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Reopen Case Denied“Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to reopen his case is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, which requires 'extraordinary circumstances' that prevented a party from taking timely action. The petitioner's claim that a fellow inmate (jailhouse lawyer) failed to raise arguments is a claim of ineffective assistance or error in the underlying litigation, which is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' under Rule 60(b)(6) but rather a matter that should have been raised on appeal or through other procedural mechanisms. The court's reliance on *United States v. Washington* is appropriate for defining the high bar of the catchall provision. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standard. It correctly identifies that the petitioner's argument regarding the failure of a 'jailhouse lawyer' to raise arguments does not meet the 'extraordinary circumstances' threshold for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (*United States v. Washington*) to support its conclusion. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a pro se motion that fails to state a cognizable basis for relief under the specific rule invoked.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 14cv0994 DMS(NLS) SAMUEL A. WEBSTER III, 11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. REOPEN CASE 13 DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 On March 23, 2016, this Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s First Amended 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner filed an appeal of that decision, which was 19 denied on November 22, 2016. On May 2, 2022, Petitioner filed the present motion to 20 reopen his case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). 21 Rule 60(b) provides that a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from 22 a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: “(1) mistake, 23 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with 24 reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 25 Rule 59(b); (3) fraud …, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 26 judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based 27 on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is 28 no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 1 Rule 60(b)(6) is a “catchall provision” that applies only when the reason for 2 || granting relief is not covered by any of the other reasons set forth in Rule 60. United 3 || States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds 4 || by United States v. Washington, 593 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2010). “It has been used sparingly 5 an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 6 ||extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or 7 correct an erroneous judgment.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioner has 8 shown that any of those circumstances are present here. The only argument he offers 9 that he has consulted with another inmate about his failed petition, and that inmate told 10 the previous jailhouse “lawyer” failed to raise a number of arguments that would 11 |/have resulted in the granting of his petition. This argument does not rise to the level of 12 ||extraordinary circumstances necessary to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). 13 || Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to reopen his case is denied. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ||Dated: December 22, 2022 16 am abd 7 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28