(HC) Williams v. Martel ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 David Earl Williams, No. 2:18-cv-02224-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Michael Martel, 1S Defendant. 16 17 After this court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and denied 18 | petitioner’s petition for the writ of habeas corpus, see Prior Order (Aug. 19, 2022), ECF No. 45, 19 | judgment was entered and the case was closed, see J., ECF No. 46. Within a week, petitioner 20 | submitted a letter explaining his efforts toward rehabilitation, which the court construed as a 21 | motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and denied. See Prior Order (Sept. 9, 2022), ECF 22 | No. 48. Petitioner now moves for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). See Mot., ECF No. 54. 23 | As explained below, the court denies the motion. 24 “Rule 60(b) enumerates specific circumstances in which a party may be relieved of the 25 | effect of a judgment, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, and the like.” Buck v. 26 | Davis, 1378. Ct. 759, 771-72 (2017). Local Rule 230(j) requires a motion for reconsideration 27 | state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or 1 | were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why 2 | the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)H(4). 3 Petitioner claims two grounds for relief. He argues he is entitled to relief under Rule 4 | 60(b)(3) for fraud because the Magistrate Judge’s findings fraudulently misrepresent the facts 5 | regarding animal hairs found on the victim, since there was allegedly countervailing evidence. 6 | See Mot. at 3. However, this argument is unpersuasive for a few reasons. First, there is no 7 | evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts by the court. Instead, petitioner points to a 8 | summary of evidence quoted directly from the California Court of Appeals decision affirming his 9 | conviction. See People v. Williams, C082104, 2017 WL 4112241, at *1—2 (Third Dist. Ct App. 10 | Sept. 18, 2017). This quote is an accurate representation of what the Appellate Court wrote. 11 | Second, petitioner cites allegedly countervailing evidence; however, the court cannot locate this 12 | evidence in the record. Third, Rule 60(b)(3) addresses fraud or misconduct “by an opposing 13 | party’—not by the court—and petitioner points to no fraudulent conduct by the opposing party. 14 | Lastly, petitioner offers no explanation for why this argument could not have been raised earlier, 15 | including by objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. 16 Petitioner also claims relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the Magistrate Judge’s findings 17 | did not “assert a defense” to petitioner’s claims as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 | 12(h). See Mot. at 4. Rule 12(h) addresses ways in which a party can waive a defense. See Fed. 19 | R. Civ. Pro. 12(h). The court is not a party to this action. To the extent petitioner intended to 20 | seek relief on the basis respondent did not assert a defense to petitioner’s habeas petition, the 21 | court finds respondent’s answer responds to the petition. See Answer, ECF No. 14. 22 For the above reasons, the court denies petitioner’s motion. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: January 18, 2023. [\ (] 25 l tie / f os CHIEF ONT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE