(HC) Todd Giffen v. Obama ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD GIFFEN, No. 1:14-cv-01280-DAD-SAB (HC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 14 BARACK OBAMA, et al., (Doc. No. 38) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Petitioner Todd Giffen proceeded in this action with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In accordance with the remand order and directive of the United 19 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this court dismissed the petition for lack of 20 jurisdiction on January 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 36.) 21 On September 3, 2019, the court received the instant motion for relief from judgment filed 22 by petitioner. (Doc. No. 38.) Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 23 On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 24 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 25 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not 26 have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); 27 (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic) misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; 28 1 (4) the judgment is void; 2 (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 3 prospectively is no longer equitable; or 4 (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and 6 for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the 7 date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 8 For a party to be entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6), he must show “‘extraordinary 9 circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 10 535 (2005) (citations omitted). “Such circumstances will rarely occur in the habeas context.” Id. 11 Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is 12 to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action 13 to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 14 2008) (citations omitted). 15 Here, the final judgment entered was predicated on this court’s lack of jurisdiction over 16 petitioner’s petition. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that at the time petitioner filed his petition, “he 17 was not incarcerated, placed on supervised release, or subject to a restraint not shared by the 18 public generally.” (Doc. No. 30 at 2.) In the present motion for relief from judgment, petitioner 19 argues that he is in fact subject to restraint not shared by the general public. (Doc. No. 38 at 3.) 20 Petitioner states that he is in a Central Intelligence Agency program called Project Star Gate, in 21 which he is being held against his will. (Id. at 1.) He further asserts that he requires a Foreign 22 Intelligence Surveillance Act hearing to free himself, that the program in which he is in requires 23 top-level clearance to know about, and that “this is secret law.” (Id.) Petitioner contends that he 24 has “over 1000 pages of exhibits” including email endorsements from various NSA 25 whistleblowers, medical records confirming his bodily and brain injuries, and Project Star Gate 26 files discussing the government’s weapon system. (Id.) 27 The court finds that petitioner has not demonstrated that the required extraordinary 28 circumstances that would entitle him to the post-judgment relief he seeks through the pending 1 | motion. Petitioner’s motion for relief is devoid of any specific facts that could support a showing 2 | that extraordinary circumstances prevented the court from correctly finding jurisdiction. Nor are 3 | any supporting documents attached to petitioner’s pending motion. Rather, petitioner merely 4 | quotes from various federal cases across the country without explanation of their relevance to this 5 | motion. 6 As such, the court finds relief is not warranted under Rule 60(b)(6). The motion for relief 7 | from judgment (Doc. No. 38) is therefore denied. 8 | IT IS SOORDERED. a " 9 ji je Ff; Dated: _ January 13, 2020 Sea 1" S098 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28