United States Ninth Circuit

The district court erred in treating defendant's motion as a successive habeas petition rather than as an FRCP 60(b)(6) motion, however, the appellate court denied the motion on the merits.

Appellate Information

• Argued 10/06/2003
• Decided 07/01/2004
• Published 07/01/2004

Judges

• SCHROEDER, Chief Judge:, Before:  SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, THOMAS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Walter K. Pyle, Berkeley, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Gregory A. Ott, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for the respondent-appellee.