Schmidt v. Evans

Filing 20

ORDER DISREGARDING Petitioner's Motion for Relief From The Judgment 19 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/4/12: Petitioner is INFORMED that no further filings in this action will be entertained. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
STEVEN L. SCHMIDT,
10
Petitioner,
11
12
13

v.
M. EVANS, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv—00341-SKO-HC
ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE
JUDGMENT (DOC. 19)

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner who proceeded pro se with a
17
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
18
which was dismissed as successive on June 13, 2011.

Judgment was

19
entered and served on Petitioner by mail on the same date.
20
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties had consented to
21
the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct
22
all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final
23
judgment.

No notice of appeal was filed.

24
On December 23, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for relief
25
from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 on the ground
26
that the judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to which
27
Petitioner is detained was void, and that Petitioner’s petition
28
1

1

was not successive.

2

The petition in this proceeding was dismissed upon

3

Respondent’s motion because it was successive, and Petitioner had

4

not obtained leave from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to

5

file a successive petition.

6

presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application

7

under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application

8

unless the Court of Appeals has given Petitioner leave to file

9

the petition.

This Court must dismiss any claim

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1).

This limitation has been

10

characterized as jurisdictional.

11

147, 152 (2007); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th

12

Cir. 2001).

13

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over

14

the petition, Petitioner’s motion for relief from the judgment is

15

DISREGARDED.

16
17

Petitioner is INFORMED that no further filings in this
action will be entertained.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
ie14hj

January 4, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2