McCarthy v. Frauenheim
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:16-cv-06820
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In James T. McCarthy v. Craig Koenig, Judge Gilliam denied reconsideration of an order denying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
The ruling affected James T McCarthy's request to reopen or reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion; the court left its earlier rulings denying his federal custody petition and related relief in place.
What happened
James T. McCarthy, an incarcerated person representing himself, challenged his custody under a federal law allowing review of state convictions. The court had previously denied his petition, and the appeals court denied permission to appeal.
McCarthy then sought relief from that judgment, arguing that fraud, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel required reconsideration. The court previously denied that request, and McCarthy asked the court to reconsider that denial.
The court rejected the request because McCarthy knew about the alleged fraud during trial and had repeatedly raised it. It also declined to revisit his ineffective-assistance claims and denied reconsideration. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order.
The detailed version
- McCarthy v. Frauenheim · No. 4:16-cv-06820
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 27, 2021
Background
James T McCarthy, an incarcerated petitioner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state-court custody. On July 13, 2020, the court denied the petition and denied a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later denied McCarthy's request for a certificate of appealability and denied his request for reconsideration by the full court.
McCarthy then filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking relief from the judgment based on alleged judicial mistake, fraud on the court, misrepresentation, and misconduct by the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. The court denied that motion in a reasoned order on May 25, 2021. The motion addressed in this order sought to appeal or obtain reconsideration of that denial.
Arguments
McCarthy argued that the court had failed to consider the effect of alleged fraud on the state-court proceedings, incorrectly found that he had not produced clear and convincing evidence of fraud, showed favoritism toward the prosecution, incorrectly found that his defense attorney had provided effective assistance, incorrectly treated his fraud claim as duplicative of his prosecutorial-misconduct claim, and incorrectly found the prosecutorial-misconduct claim procedurally barred.
Court's Analysis
The court explained that Rule 60(b)(3) can allow a judgment to be set aside for fraud on the court, but only when the fraud was not known when the judgment was entered. The court found that McCarthy knew about the alleged fraud during trial and had repeatedly raised the issue in state-court proceedings and in this federal action. It therefore concluded that Rule 60(b)(3) did not apply.
The court also stated that it had already considered and denied McCarthy's ineffective-assistance claims in the order denying the petition and the order denying reconsideration. It declined to address those claims again. The court concluded that it had correctly applied the governing law and had not erred in denying either the petition or the earlier reconsideration request.
Disposition
The court denied McCarthy's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The order terminated Docket No. 53.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.