Godfrey v. Warden PVSP

Background

JM Godfrey, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of resentencing under state law. On June 30, 2020, the court dismissed the petition for lack of federal habeas jurisdiction. Godfrey then moved for reconsideration.

Reconsideration standards

The court considered the motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, generally based on newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the law. Rule 60(b) provides several grounds for relief from a judgment, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief.

Court’s analysis

Godfrey argued that the court had failed to consider United States v. Willis and what he called “Sessions v. Demaya.” The court stated that United States v. Willis concerned a challenge to a federal sentence for violating supervised-release conditions. It also stated that the relevant case was Sessions v. Dimaya, which involved an immigration challenge concerning the classification of state convictions as crimes of violence under federal law.

The court found no clear error in its earlier dismissal. It concluded that Godfrey’s claims essentially concerned the interpretation and application of state sentencing laws and therefore did not raise a federal question. The court also determined that Godfrey’s reliance on the two cases did not provide a basis for relief under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).

Disposition

The court denied the motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and denied it under Rule 60(b). The conclusion again stated that the motion for reconsideration was denied and that Godfrey may seek an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. The order terminated Docket No. 22.