Rodriguez v. Martinez
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 27 In Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held that “a Rule 60(b)(6) motion in a § 2254 case 28 is not to be treated as a successive habeas petition if it does not assert, or reassert, claims 1 error in the movant’s state conviction.�
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se state prisoner's 'Non-Statutory Motion Request for Proceeding Free of Defect' filed in a pending § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court denied the request, finding that the cited Supreme Court precedent was inapplicable because the court had not yet determined the current petition to be successive or denied a Rule 60(b) motion in this specific case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Non-Statutory Motion Request for Proceeding Free of Defect“Accordingly, Petitioner’s Non-Statutory Motion Request for Proceeding Free of Defect Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532-533 is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the holding in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), regarding the distinction between Rule 60(b)(6) motions and successive habeas petitions, is factually inapplicable to the current procedural posture. The order explicitly notes that the court has not yet determined the current petition to be successive, nor has it denied a Rule 60(b) motion in this case. Therefore, the legal basis cited by the petitioner does not support the requested relief at this stage of the proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately recites the procedural history, identifies the specific legal authority cited by the petitioner, and explains why that authority does not apply to the current motion. The court distinguishes the current case from the prior case (3:23-cv-02135) where a similar motion was denied, clarifying that no such determination has been made in the instant case (3:23-cv-02148).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 23-cv-2148-MMA (BLM)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING NON- 13 v. STATUTORY MOTION REQUEST FOR PROCEEDING FREE OF 14 SHERIFF KELLEY MARTINEZ, et al., DEFECT [Doc. No. 12] 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) on November 20, 2023. Doc. Nos. 1–2. The 21 Court denied the IFP motion on December 5, 2023, because Petitioner had not submitted 22 a current trust account statement. Doc. No. 4. Petitioner then paid the $5.00 filing fee on 23 January 4, 2024, and the Court issued an Order to Respond to the Petition. Doc. Nos. 5, 24 7. Petitioner has now filed a document entitled “Non-Statutory Motion Request for 25 Proceeding Free of Defect Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532–533.” See Doc. No. 26 12. 27 In Gonzalez, the Supreme Court held that “a Rule 60(b)(6) motion in a § 2254 case 28 is not to be treated as a successive habeas petition if it does not assert, or reassert, claims 1 error in the movant’s state conviction.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 538. It is not clear how 2 || Petitioner believes this holding applies to this case. Although the Court determined that 3 || the petition Petitioner filed in S.D. Cal. case no. 3:23-cv-02135-MMA (MSB) was 4 || successive and denied Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion in that case, the Court has not 5 || determined the Petition in this case is successive nor has it denied a Rule 60(b) motion. ! 6 || Accordingly, Petitioner’s Non-Statutory Motion Request for Proceeding Free of Defect 7 || Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532-533 is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: March 25, 2024 10 Vth, CTU - (Ligh 11 HON. MICHAEL M. ELLO United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || 27 ||! Petitioner is currently seeking leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive 28 habeas corpus petition in 23-cv-2135-MMA (MSB). See Doc. No. 12 in S.D. Cal. case no. 23-cv-2136- MMA (MSB).