Anthony Ross Black VS E. K. McDaniel
3:05-cv-00316
| D. Nev. | Feb 10, 2020Background:
- Petitioner Anthony Ross Black was convicted in Nevada state court (judgment entered Feb. 16, 1999) and sought federal habeas relief in this district; the federal court denied the petition on the merits in June 2008 and entered judgment.
- Black pursued post-judgment motions and appeals; multiple later filings (including actions in 2013 and 2019) were treated as second or successive and denied for lack of Ninth Circuit authorization.
- In 2019 Black filed a Rule 60(b) motion in this closed 2005 federal habeas case, arguing the federal judgment was void because the state court allegedly failed to resolve one state-petition claim (Ground 4, No. (8)) and thus retained jurisdiction.
- The district court found the omitted claim was waived when Black did not include it in his second state petition; the court also examined whether the Rule 60(b) filing was successive and whether it was timely.
- The court denied Black’s Rule 60(b) motion, his motion for appointment of counsel, and his equity motion; it ruled the Rule 60(b) motion was meritless and untimely and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) because the state court failed to resolve Ground 4, No. (8) and thus retained jurisdiction | Black: state court’s order omitted resolution of Ground 4(8), so it wasn’t final or appealable; federal court lacked jurisdiction; judgment void | Respondents: Ground 4(8) was waived—Black did not present it in his second state petition—so the state court had no ongoing jurisdiction; federal judgment stands | Denied — claim was waived and the federal judgment is not void |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion is a second or successive habeas petition requiring Ninth Circuit authorization | Black: motion attacks judgment integrity (Rule 60(b)), not merits of a new claim | Respondents: court analyzed character of motion; no authorization required if motion purely Rule 60(b) but must not seek to relitigate merits | Court concluded the motion did not constitute a second or successive petition, but was nonetheless meritless |
| Whether the Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely under Rule 60(c) | Black: filed in 2019 challenging a 2008 judgment | Respondents: filing almost 11 years after judgment is not within a reasonable time | Denied as untimely — filed nearly 11 years later, unreasonable |
| Whether appointment of counsel or equitable relief should be granted | Black: requested counsel and equitable powers to pursue relief | Respondents: no basis—the underlying Rule 60(b) motion failed | Denied — appointment of counsel and equity relief denied; COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) in habeas context is limited; distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from disguised successive petitions)
- Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2017) (AEDPA limits Rule 60(b) relief; Rule 60(b) applies to habeas to the extent not inconsistent with AEDPA)
- Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (explains when Rule 60(b) attacks proceedings’ integrity vs. when a motion seeks to present claims and thus is a successive petition)