Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Lamarque

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 19, 2008

ANTHONY V. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
ANTHONY LAMARQUE, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court

Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment [Doc. No. 25]

Petitioner Anthony Williams has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment in this case pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion.

In his original and amended habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner argued (1) his 27 year to life sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, (2) his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because he was actually innocent, (3) the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence also in violation of his right to due process, and (4) he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. [Doc. No. 13, p. 1.] On May 13, 2003, Magistrate Judge James F. Stiven issued a report and recommendation for denial of these claims. [Doc. No. 13.] On October 24, 2003, the Court overruled Petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation and denied the petition . [Doc. No. 17.] The Clerk entered judgment on October 29, 2003. [Doc. No. 18.] Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability was denied. [Doc. Nos. 18 and 23.]

Petitioner now moves the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to reconsider its final order denying his petition. Petitioner argues the Court erred in rejecting his claim that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Petitioner argues his sentence of 27 years to life under the Three Strikes Law for the crime of vehicle theft is grossly disproportionate.

Rule 60(b)(6) permits the Court to grant relief only where "extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment." United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). The rule is to be "used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice." Id.; see also Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (considering use of Rule 60(b)(6) in the context of a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Petitioner raised most of the arguments set forth in his current motion in the earlier proceedings, and the Court rejected those arguments. To the extent Petitioner now raises new arguments, he points to no "extraordinary circumstances" which prevented him from raising such arguments earlier. Hamilton, 374 F.3d at 825.

Therefore, Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080519

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.