(HC) Khadijah Ghafur v. The People of the State of California
1:13-cv-01282
E.D. Cal.Sep 10, 2015Background
- Petitioner Khadiha Ghafur filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition; the Magistrate Judge recommended denial because it was successive and lacked Ninth Circuit authorization.
- The district court adopted the F&R and dismissed the petition on April 4, 2014; judgment entered the same day.
- On February 2, 2015, Ghafur filed a Rule 60(b) motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present exculpatory evidence and alibi witnesses and contending she was wrongly denied the right to file a successive petition.
- The Rule 60(b) motion was initially filed in the Central District of California and transferred to the Eastern District of California.
- The court observed Ghafur referenced a July 31, 2014 order (not on this court’s docket) and noted that if her challenge was to a Ninth Circuit order, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.
- The court treated the Rule 60(b) motion as a disguised successive § 2254 petition because it raised substantive claims (ineffective assistance/alibi witnesses) rather than attacking the integrity of the prior habeas proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) motion is a proper challenge to the district court's April 4, 2014 judgment | Ghafur argues counsel was ineffective and that she was improperly denied ability to file a successive petition | District contends motion raises new claims and thus is a successive habeas petition requiring Ninth Circuit authorization | Motion is a disguised successive § 2254 petition and not a proper Rule 60(b) challenge |
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction to grant relief if motion concerns a Ninth Circuit order | Ghafur references a July 31, 2014 order denying successive-petition relief | District argues it has no authority over Ninth Circuit orders; such matters must be addressed to the Ninth Circuit | If the motion concerns a Ninth Circuit order, district court lacks jurisdiction to provide relief |
| Whether Rule 60(b) may be used to relitigate ineffective-assistance claims | Ghafur seeks an evidentiary hearing on counsel's failure to call witnesses | District says ineffective-assistance claims are merits-based "claims" under § 2244(b) and cannot be raised via Rule 60(b) absent circuit certification | Court holds these are merits claims for § 2244(b) purposes and cannot be relitigated via Rule 60(b) without Ninth Circuit authorization |
| Effect of lack of Ninth Circuit certification | Ghafur did not show Ninth Circuit permission to file a successive petition | District asserts that without certification it lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive petition | Court denies the Rule 60(b) motion for lack of Ninth Circuit certification and thus for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes true Rule 60(b) motions from disguised successive habeas claims)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (explains when postjudgment motions are treated as successive habeas petitions)
- United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011) (motion that seeks a second opportunity on the merits is a successive petition)
- Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2006) (district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain successive § 2254 petitions without circuit authorization)