Corbett v. Cate
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:12-cv-02070-PJH
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Corbett v. Cate, Judge Hamilton denied Corbett’s request to reopen his federal challenge because it raised a new claim requiring Ninth Circuit permission.
Michael J. Corbett’s effort to reopen his federal challenge was affected; the court denied his Rule 60(b) motion and required Ninth Circuit authorization before he could file a second or successive petition.
What happened
In Corbett v. Cate, Michael J. Corbett challenged his state conviction through a federal petition. The court denied that petition in 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2015, and the Supreme Court declined further review in 2016.
Corbett then filed a motion under Rule 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances. He argued that he had discovered evidence that his trial lawyer had a conflict of interest. The court treated that argument as a new claim that could not be added through this type of motion.
Judge Hamilton denied the motion. She explained that Corbett would first need permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second federal petition and would also need to satisfy the legal requirements for such a petition.
The detailed version
- Corbett v. Cate · No. 4:12-cv-02070-PJH
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
Michael J. Corbett, a state prisoner, filed a federal petition challenging his state-court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied the petition on the merits on January 21, 2014. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that denial on December 22, 2015, and the Supreme Court denied Corbett’s request for further review on April 25, 2016.
The pending filing was Corbett’s motion for relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule permits relief from a judgment on specified grounds, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Motions based on the first three grounds generally must be filed within one year, while all Rule 60(b) motions must be filed within a reasonable time.
Arguments and analysis
The earlier decision rejected Corbett’s ineffective-assistance claim, including his argument concerning his attorney’s alleged drug use. In the new motion, Corbett argued that he had discovered evidence that his trial attorney also had a conflict of interest.
The court concluded that Corbett was attempting to present a new claim. Under the cited law, a filing that raises a new basis for federal relief from a state conviction is treated as a second or successive petition, or as sufficiently similar to one that the same restrictions apply, even if the filing is labeled a Rule 60(b) motion. A district court may not consider such a petition unless the petitioner first obtains authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.
The opinion recited the statutory requirements for a second or successive petition, including reliance on a previously unavailable, retroactive constitutional rule or newly discoverable facts that would clearly and convincingly show that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty absent a constitutional error.
Ruling
The court denied Corbett’s motion, Docket No. 28. It stated that Corbett must first obtain permission from the Ninth Circuit and satisfy the applicable legal standards before filing a second or successive petition. The court did not decide the merits of the newly asserted conflict-of-interest claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.