Dilbert v. Martel
- Susan Illston
- 3:10-cv-03396
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Dilbert v. Martel, Judge Illston denied Clifford Dilbert’s third request to reopen his habeas case and declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal.
Clifford Dilbert’s third motion to reopen the judgment was denied. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, while leaving him free to seek one from the Ninth Circuit.
What happened
In Dilbert v. Martel, the court had dismissed Clifford Dilbert’s habeas case in 2011 because the petition was filed too late. The court had already denied two earlier requests to reopen the judgment.
Dilbert filed a third request under a rule allowing relief from a final judgment in extraordinary circumstances. The court denied it, finding that he repeated an argument previously rejected and that the request was not filed within a reasonable time.
Judge Susan Illston also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, but said Dilbert could seek one from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Dilbert v. Martel · No. 3:10-cv-03396
- Susan Illston
- June 9, 2020
Background
Clifford Dilbert’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus had been dismissed on June 20, 2011, because the court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is permission required to appeal the denial of a habeas petition.
Dilbert previously filed two motions seeking relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court denied the first motion on July 6, 2011, and the second motion under Rule 60(b)(6) on June 27, 2014. Dilbert then filed a third Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
Rule 60(b)(6) standard
Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision that permits relief from a final judgment for an extraordinary reason not covered by the rule’s other provisions. A person seeking relief must show extraordinary circumstances justifying reopening the judgment. A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must also be filed within a reasonable time.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the third Rule 60(b)(6) motion. It found that Dilbert’s argument repeated an argument previously made and rejected in the order denying his first Rule 60(b) motion. The court also stated that the procedural-default argument was irrelevant to the statute-of-limitations issue. As an additional reason for denial, the court found that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. It stated that the denial did not prevent Dilbert from seeking a certificate from the Ninth Circuit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.