Fosselman v. Evans

Filing 44

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/11/2011 denying 39 Motion for relief from Judgment. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 LORENZO FOSSELMAN, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) M. S. EVANS, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) 1:07-CV-00812 LJO GSA HC ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [Doc. #39] 17 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 3, 2008, the undersigned issued an order denying the petition. Judgment was 21 entered the same date. On January 12, 2009, Petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal; the 22 appeal was processed to the Ninth Circuit. On April 26, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s 23 request for certificate of appealability for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Petitioner filed a 24 petition for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit, which the Ninth Circuit construed as a motion for 25 reconsideration. On June 29, 2010, the motion was denied. On March 21, 2011, Petitioner filed the 26 instant motion for relief from judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 27 Procedure. Respondent filed an opposition to Petitioner’s motion on May 4, 2011. 28 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 1 1 On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 2 (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 (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 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. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Petitioner asks that the Court reopen the time for filing an appeal. He states he was undergoing exceptional circumstances outside of his control. As noted by Respondent, Rule 60(b) is 10 not the appropriate vehicle for relief. Because of the procedural posture of this case, Rule 4 of the 11 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governs. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the Court may reopen the time to 12 file an appeal if: 1) the Court finds that Petitioner did not receive notice of the entry of judgment 13 within 21 days after entry; 2) the motion is filed within 180 days after judgment is entered or within 14 14 days after Petitioner received notice; and 3) the Court finds that no party would be prejudiced. In 15 this case, judgment was entered on December 3, 2008. Petitioner admits he received notice “some 2 16 weeks later,” or “after December 12, 2008.” (See Pet’r’s Mot. and Decl. of Pet’r attached to Mtn.) 17 Thus, the Court finds Petitioner received notice within 21 days of the judgment. Further, Petitioner 18 did not request that the Court reopen the time to file an appeal within the prescribed time. 19 Consequently, Petitioner is not entitled to relief under Rule 4(a)(6). Moreover, as Respondent points 20 out, the Court is unable to grant the relief Petitioner seeks. The Federal Rules of Appellate 21 Procedure override Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Clark v. Lavallie, 204 22 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2000). In any case, the Ninth Circuit has already denied Petitioner’s motion for 23 relief from judgment. 24 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment or order is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: b9ed48 May 11, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?