Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 70 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:866

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 RICHARD I. FINE, ) No. CV 09-1914-JFW(CW)
)
13 Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
) VACATE JUDGMENT
14 v. )
)
15 SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,)
et al., )
16 )
Respondents. )
17 ______________________________)
18
19 For reasons stated below, petitioner’s motion for relief from the
20 judgment dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
21 PROCEEDINGS AND BACKGROUND
22 The pro se petitioner is a disbarred attorney in custody subject
23 to a contempt order by the California Superior Court, Los Angeles
24 County. His petition for habeas corpus relief challenging that
25 custody was denied, on the merits, in an order filed June 29, 2009.
26 [Docket no. 30.] Judgment was entered accordingly on that same date.
27 [Docket no. 31.] The district court denied issuance of a certificate
28 of appealability in an order filed July 21, 2009. [Docket no. 48.]

1
 Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 70 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:867

1 Petitioner appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district

2 court’s decision on December 16, 2009, and denied panel rehearing and
3 rehearing en banc on February 16, 2010. [9th Cir. Case No. 09-56073.]
4 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which the
5 United States Supreme Court denied on May 4, 2010. [Supreme Court
6 Case No. 09-1250.]
7 Although Petitioner has presented his case, and been denied
8 relief, at each level of the California and Federal court systems, he
9 continues to file duplicative pleadings in an ongoing attempt to
10 reopen this closed action. Most recently Petitioner filed a purported
11 motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(3)
12 allegedly “based upon fraud upon the court.” [Docket no. 61, filed
13 June 28, 2010.] The respondents have filed opposition, and the motion
14 has been taken under submission and is ready for decision.
15 DISCUSSION
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(5) states five specific reasons why a
17 district court may grant relief from a final judgment, including (3)
18 fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party,
19 while Petitioner invokes in the present motion. However, Petitioner
20 does not actually support a claim that an adverse party perpetrated a
21 fraud on this court in the present action. Instead, he simply repeats
22 the claim that has formed the substance of all of his related actions
23 -- namely, that the superior court judge who issued the contempt order
24 against him perpetrated a fraud on that court. The adverse parties in
25 the present action did nothing to conceal that issue from this court.
26 Petitioner has litigated that issue all the way to the United States
27 Supreme Court and is now, improperly, attempting to raise it again.
28

2
 Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 70 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:868

1 Rather than being a proper Rule 60(b)(3) motion, the present

2 pleading is comparable to improperly using a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to
3 relitigate the substantive claims in the underlying petition. See
4 Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 533-36, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed.
5 2d 480 (2005)(relief under Rule 60(b)(6) not available on merits of
6 petitioner’s substantive claims; purported Rule 60(b)(6) motion
7 challenging district court’s ruling on merits of claim is equivalent
8 to a successive petition).
9 ORDER
10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
11 1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment (docket no. 61,
12 filed June 28, 2010) is DENIED.
13 2. The clerk shall serve this order on the parties.
14
15
16 DATED: 7/20/10
17
18
JOHN F. WALTER
19 United States District Judge
20
Presented by
21 Dated: July 19, 2010
22
23
24 CARLA M. WOEHRLE
United States Magistrate Judge
25
26
27
28