govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cr-01288-29

1 
14-cr-1288-12-DMS 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 Plaintiff, 
 v. 
MARCUS ANTHONY FOREMAN (12), 
 Defendant. 

 
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 
JUDGMENT 
 
[ECF No. 1679] 
 
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant 
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 1679.) This matter 
is suitable for decision without oral argument or further briefing. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 
7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s motion. 
I. BACKGROUND 
Defendant moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 on January 7, 2021. (ECF No. 1489.) Th e Court denied the motion (“§ 2255 
Order”) on January 13, 2022. (ECF No. 1541.) Defendant appealed the § 2255 Order, 
(ECF No. 1546), then moved this Court for reconsideration while the Order was still under 
appeal, (ECF No. 1590). On January 13, 2023, the Court denied the motion for 
reconsideration because it lacked jurisdiction to review the motion while the underlying 
Case 3:14-cr-01288-DMS Document 1680 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4
 
2 
14-cr-1288-12-DMS 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Order was on appeal. (ECF No. 1599.) The Ninth Circuit denied Defendant’s request for 
a certificate of appealability on August 8, 2023. (ECF No. 1603.) Defendant subsequently 
filed renewed motions for reconsideration of the § 2255 Order , (ECF Nos. 1629, 1633, 
1635), which the Court denied on August 11, 2025. (ECF No. 1637.) Defendant now 
moves for judgment from relief under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6), arguing the Court made 
several errors in its § 2255 Order. (ECF No. 1679.) Specifically, Defendant argues th e 
Court (1) incorrectly described his claims and factual allegations as lacking specificity or 
record support; (2) failed to adjudicate ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (3) denied 
his request to expand the record, then rejected claims for lack of evidentiary support; (4) 
improperly found procedural default; (5) failed to address constitutional issues arising from 
the plea negotiations; and (6) overlooked material factual disputes.
1 (Id. at 3–4.) 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Rule 60(b) states that a court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a 
final judgment, order, or proceeding for: 
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . . , 
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is 
void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based 
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies 
relief. 
 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Rule 60(b)(6) provides a catchall for ‘any other reason that justifies 
relief.’” Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 533 (2022). “This last option is available 
only when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are inapplicable. ” Id. Motions for relief from 
judgment should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Smith v. Shartle, No. CV-18-
 
1 The § 2255 Order contains further background information not necessary to repeat here. ( See ECF 
No. 1541.) 
 
Case 3:14-cr-01288-DMS Document 1680 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4
 
3 
14-cr-1288-12-DMS 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
00323, 2019 WL 5653444, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 31, 2019) (citation omitted). “A motion 
under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time— and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) 
no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 
III. DISCUSSION 
 The Court finds Defendant’s motion is untimely. Defendant now moves for relief 
from judgment over four years after the Court entered its § 2255 Order on January 13, 
2022. (See ECF No. 1541.) Thus, Defendant’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion is explicitly barred 
by Rule 60(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) . Further, while Rule 60(b)(6) motions are “ not 
subject to this . . . 1-year co nstraint,” Kemp , 596 U.S. at 533, the Court finds that 
Defendant’s arguments under Rule 60(b)(6) were not raised within a “reasonable ti me.” 
More than four years have elapsed since entry of the § 2255 Order, and Defendant has 
offered no reason or extraordinary circumstance to justify such a delay in filing the present 
motion. See, e.g., Lindblad v. United States, No. 05-CR-00206, 2016 WL 1170860, at *3 
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016) (finding Rule 60(b)(6) motion filed over three years after entry 
of order denying § 2255 motion untimely). The Court finds the delay particularly 
unreasonable considering Defendant has previously appealed and moved to reconsider the 
§ 2255 Order , and, therefore, had clear notice of the Court’s ruling. Thus, the Court 
DENIES Defendant’s motion for being untimely. 
 Additionally, Defendant could have raised the present arguments in his previous 
motions for reconsideration. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 
Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) . H e argues the § 2255 Order contains reported 
errors that were discernable upon reading the Order and, thus, should have been raised in 
his previous motions. Defendant fails to explain why his current arguments were not raised 
in earlier motions and does not argue there exists newly discovered evidence o r a change 
in law. For these reasons, Defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Case 3:14-cr-01288-DMS Document 1680 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4
 
4 
14-cr-1288-12-DMS 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Dated: June 18, 2026 
_________________________________ 
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 
United States District Judge 
 
 
Case 3:14-cr-01288-DMS Document 1680 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight