Sully v. Brown ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 ANTHONY J. SULLY, 8 Case No. 92-0829 WHA Petitioner, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT 10 PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF RON BROOMFIELD, Acting Warden, CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B)(6) 11 California State Prison at San Quentin, 12 Respondent. 13 14 Petitioner has filed a pro se Motion For Relief From Final Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 60(b)(6) seeking relief from the Order Granting Summary Judgment on claims contained 16 in petitioner’s federal habeas petition, filed on May 20, 2008. Dkt. No. 230. In a reiteration of 17 claims denied on summary judgment, petitioner alleges that conditions of pretrial confinement 18 caused him to be incompetent to stand trial, and that his habeas counsel, Richard Mazer, provided 19 ineffective assistance by failing to properly raise this claim. In 2014, petitioner filed a successive 20 petition in state court based, in part, on these renewed claims. Dkt. No. 273, Ex. 1. The state 21 petition is still pending. 22 Because petitioner seeks relief from a judgment that addressed the merits of his claims, 23 petitioner’s motion qualifies as a successive habeas petition requiring authorization from the Court 24 of Appeals pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See Gonzalez v. 25 Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005); 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Additionally, petitioner’s motion, filed 26 twelve years after the entry of judgment and six years after the same claims were raised in a 27 Case No. 92-0829 1 successive petition in state court, is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(c)(1). Accordingly, it is 2 DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 23, 2020 Pee 5 = a LIAM ALSUP 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 13 15 16 & 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No. 92-0829 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B)(6)