Opinion
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1282 AWI JLT (HC)
09-10-2015
KHADIHA GHAFUR, Petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Respondents
ORDER ON RULE 60(b) MOTION
(Doc. No. 27)
On January 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") that recommended denying Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Doc. No. 23. The F&R recommended a denial because Petitioner had previously filed a § 2254 petition, and she had not received permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. See id.
On April 4, 2014, after no objections to the F&R had been filed, the Court adopted the F&R and dismissed Petitioner's petition. See Doc. NO. 25. Judgment was entered the same day. See Doc. No. 26.
On February 2, 2015, Petitioner filed this Rule 60(b) motion that challenged the denial of her § 2254 petition. See Doc. No. 27. For unknown reasons, Petitioner improperly filed this motion with the Central District of California, which then transferred the motion to this Court. See Doc. No. 27-1. In her Rule 60(b) motion, Petitioner contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not introduce exculpatory evidence and witnesses. See id. Petitioner contends that she was erroneously denied the opportunity to file a successive petition due to the "July 31, 2014 order." Id. Petitioner argues that cases from state courts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey render reliance 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) improper. See id. Petitioner contends that an evidentiary hearing regarding her trial counsel's failure to call alibi witnesses is necessary. See id.
The Court notes that Petitioner does not indicate which subsection of Rule 60(b) she is attempting to invoke. --------
Discussion
It is not clear that Petitioner is even attempting to obtain relief from the April 4, 2014 order and judgment in this Court. In her Rule 60(b) motion, Plaintiff references a July 31, 2014 order that denied her the right to file a successive petition. There is no such order in this Court's docket. Petitioner's reference to a July 31, 2014 order and her description of that order suggests that Plaintiff may have filed a request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. If Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion relates to an order by the Ninth Circuit, then her Rule 60(b) motion should not have been filed with either the Central District or this Court; it should have been directed to the Ninth Circuit. As lower courts, federal district courts have no authority over federal circuit courts. To the extent that Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion relates to an order of the Ninth Circuit, this Court could not grant Petitioner relief.
Assuming that Petitioner is seeking relief from this Court's April 4, 2014 order and judgment, relief is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) limits the ability of a federal habeas corpus petitioner to file successive habeas corpus petitions, unless certain narrow requirements are met. Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 834 (9th Cir. 2013). A petitioner seeking to meet § 2244(b)'s requirements for a success petition must do so with the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals, and receive certification to proceed with a successive petition from that Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Because of § 2244(b)'s stringent standards, habeas petitioners sometimes attempt to disguise a successive § 2254 petition as a Rule 60(b) motion. See Jones, 733 F.3d at 834. A legitimate Rule 60(b) motion will attack a "'defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings,' while a second federal habeas corpus petition 'is a filing that contains one or more 'claims,'' defined as 'asserted federal bases for relief from a state court's judgement of conviction.'" Id. (quoting Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 530, 532). Essentially, "a motion that does not challenge the integrity of the proceedings, but in effect asks for a second chance to have the merits determined favorably, is raising a 'claim' that takes it outside the purview of Rule 60(b)." United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Petitioner generally disagrees with the Court's prior reliance on § 2244(b), and argues that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not introduce exculpatory witnesses and evidence, including an alibi witness. These are "claims" for purposes of § 2244(b). See Jones, 733 F.3d at 834; Washington, 653 F.3d at 1063. Therefore, Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion a disguised successive § 2254 petition.
There is no indication that Petitioner received certification from the Ninth Circuit to file the Rule 60(b) motion in this Court. Without certification from the Ninth Circuit, this Court is without jurisdiction and will deny Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, disguised, successive § 2254 petition. See Washington, 653 F.3d at 1065; Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 958 (9th Cir. 2006).
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Rule 60(b) (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 10, 2015
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE