Opinion
Case No. LA CV 15-2564 BRO (JCG)
06-18-2015
LAWRENCE L. HANKINS, Petitioner, v. K. SIEBEL, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
The Court has considered Petitioner's "Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant [to] Federal Rule[] of Civil Procedure . . . 60(b)" ("Motion"). [Dkt. No. 6.] Therein, Petitioner requests that the Court vacate its April 17, 2015 Judgment, which dismissed this action on the grounds that Petitioner's federal habeas petition was an unauthorized "second or successive" petition. [Dkt. Nos. 4-5]; see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.
By way of background, on April 7, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"). [Dkt. No. 1.] Notably, the Petition was Petitioner's second federal habeas petition challenging a 1996 state court judgment. [See id. at 10.] Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), Petitioner was required to obtain the Ninth Circuit's authorization before filing a "second or successive" petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
In his Petition, Petitioner argued that the Petition was not "second or successive" because he was "challenging the sentence and not the conviction . . . ." [Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.]
However, the Court rejected Petitioner's argument, explaining that the Petition was "second or successive" because both of Petitioner's federal habeas petitions challenged the same state court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [See Dkt. No. 4 at 2]; see also Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156-57 (2007) (holding that a "judgment" challenged under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comprises a state court conviction and sentence).
Now, Petitioner contends that the Court "failed inadvertently to distinguish" Burton, and that his most recent habeas "challenge falls outside the spirit of Burton." (Mot. at 2-3.) But Petitioner fails to explain why this Court's citation to Burton was inapposite, nor why the referenced proposition is incorrect. Cf. Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that use of "judgment" in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) "refers to the judgment of conviction and sentence").
Moreover, Petitioner continues to mischaracterize his 1998 federal habeas petition, in which Petitioner challenged his conviction and his sentence. [See C.D. Cal. Case No. LA CV 98-6901 WMB (VAP), Dkt. No. 15, at 9-20.]
Thus, the Court concludes that it made no legal error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
Additionally, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). The Court thus declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 18, 2015
By: /s/_________
HON. BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL
United States District Court Judge