# Sully v. Brown

> District Court, N.D. California · September 23, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065211

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** September 23, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065211

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
7
ANTHONY J. SULLY,
8 Case No. 92-0829 WHA
Petitioner,
9 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
v. RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT
10 PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
RON BROOMFIELD, Acting Warden, CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B)(6)
11 California State Prison at San Quentin,

12
Respondent.
13

14
Petitioner has filed a pro se Motion For Relief From Final Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R.
15
Civ. P. 60(b)(6) seeking relief from the Order Granting Summary Judgment on claims contained
16
in petitioner’s federal habeas petition, filed on May 20, 2008. Dkt. No. 230. In a reiteration of
17
claims denied on summary judgment, petitioner alleges that conditions of pretrial confinement
18
caused him to be incompetent to stand trial, and that his habeas counsel, Richard Mazer, provided
19
ineffective assistance by failing to properly raise this claim. In 2014, petitioner filed a successive
20
petition in state court based, in part, on these renewed claims. Dkt. No. 273, Ex. 1. The state
21
petition is still pending.
22
Because petitioner seeks relief from a judgment that addressed the merits of his claims,
23
petitioner’s motion qualifies as a successive habeas petition requiring authorization from the Court
24
of Appeals pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. See Gonzalez v.
25
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005); 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Additionally, petitioner’s motion, filed
26
twelve years after the entry of judgment and six years after the same claims were raised in a
27
Case No. 92-0829
1 successive petition in state court, is untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(c)(1). Accordingly, it is
2 DENIED.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 || Dated: September 23, 2020 Pee
5 =
a LIAM ALSUP
6 United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
a 12

13

15

16
&
17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case No. 92-0829
28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(B)(6)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10065211. Public record. Not legal advice.