Castro

Houston v. Castro

Good Law
161 F. App'x 667
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 3, 2006No. 04-16687California830 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

James L. Houston appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district judge denied Houston’s Rule 60(b) motion, finding both that the motion was really a successive petition and that the motion failed on its merits. We affirm.

On August 6,1997, Houston was convicted of second degree murder by a California jury and sentenced to 18 years to life in prison. Houston filed a timely appeal of his conviction to the California Court of Appeal along with a request for post conviction relief. The California Court of Appeal consolidated Houston’s direct appeal and his habeas petition. On November 16, 2000, both appeal and request for post conviction relief were denied by the court of appeal. In order to exhaust his state remedies, Houston filed a timely petition for review to the California Supreme Court. On February 28, 2001, the California Supreme Court denied review of his petition. His conviction became final ninety (90) days thereafter, on May 29, 2001, *668 when the time for seeking a petition for writ of certiorari expired.

Houston waited almost 18 months before submitting his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.