United States Ninth Circuit

On a prisoner's motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), seeking to reopen his habeas corpus case and adjudicate his Eddings-Tennard claim on the merits on the basis that his counsel had abandoned him by failing to raise the claim earlier, the district court's denial of the motion is affirmed, where the district court properly treated the motion as a second or successive petition and did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion, since, even assuming attorney abandonment could constitute an exception to the statutory bar on second or successive habeas petitions, the petitioner had not shown that he was abandoned, nor had he shown a serious breach of loyalty that might have severed his agency relationship with counsel.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/27/2012
• Published 02/27/2012

Judges

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Therese M. Day, Jon G. Anderson