(HC) Kopp v. Martinez

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/24/2024 DENYING 28 Motion for Relief from Judgment. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JASON CHARLES KOPP,

12

Petitioner,

13

ORDER

v.

14

No. 2:22-cv-0280-TLN-JDP

MARTINEZ,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19

This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Jason Charles Kopp’s (“Petitioner”)
Motion for Relief from Judgment.1 (ECF No. 28.) Respondent Martinez (“Respondent”) did not
file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
28

As discussed below, the Court construes Petitioner’s objections as a motion for relief from
judgment.
1
1

1

A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is not necessary for the

2

disposition of Petitioner’s motion. As relevant here, Petitioner is a state prisoner challenging his

3

criminal conviction via a writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”). On November 30, 2022, the

4

magistrate judge made findings and recommended the Court grant Respondent’s motion to

5

dismiss the Petition as time-barred (“F&Rs”). (ECF No. 22.) The F&Rs were served on

6

Petitioner via United States mail that same day, and any objections thereto were due within

7

fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Petitioner timely filed objections to the F&Rs but did not contest the

8

magistrate judge’s findings related to the timeliness of the Petition. (ECF No. 23.) Instead,

9

Petitioner argued that he is factually innocent and that the conditions of his confinement during

10

the COVID-19 pandemic precluded him from timely filing the Petition.2 (Id.)

11

On February 8, 2023, the Court adopted the F&Rs in full and dismissed the Petition with

12

prejudice. (ECF No. 25.) The Court declined to issue a certificate of appealability under 28

13

U.S.C. § 2253 and ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. (Id.) The Clerk of Court entered

14

Judgment that same day. (ECF No. 26.)
On February 20, 2024, Petitioner filed renewed “objections” to the F&Rs, asking the

15
16

Court to find in his favor. As discussed above, however, Petitioner already submitted objections

17

to the F&Rs, and Judgment has already been entered in this case. Nevertheless, the Court

18

construes Petitioner’s objections as a motion for relief from judgment. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

19

F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (court must construe pro se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally); Fair v.

20

Atchley, No. 2:20-CV-01107-TLN-DB, 2024 WL 2922599, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2024)

21

(construing untimely objections to F&Rs as a motion for relief from judgment).

22
23
24

On motion and just terms, a district court may relieve a party from a final judgment or
order for the following reasons:
(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);

25
26
27
28

Petitioner advanced these same arguments in his opposition to Respondent’s motion to
dismiss, which the magistrate judge rejected in the F&Rs. (See ECF No. 22.)
2
2

1
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

2
3

(4) the judgment is void;

4

(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

5
6

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

7
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Petitioner does not argue any of the first five categories (nor does the Court find them

9
10
11
12
13

applicable), leaving only the sixth, catchall category. Petitioner contends the Court should rule in
his favor because the plea deal signature on March 19, 2019, is not lawful because Petitioner was
never given medical help. (ECF No. 28.) Even if this were true, Petitioner fails to demonstrate
why this entitles him to the extraordinary relief he seeks.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No.

14
15
16
17

28.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 24, 2024

18
19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3