(HC) Barton v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/24/2024 CONSTRUING 10 Objections as a Motion for Relief from Judgment, DENYING 10 Motion for Relief from Judgment, and CORRECTING 8 Order as to dismiss First Amended Petition with prejudice. No further motions will be considered in this action. (Mendez Licea, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
WILLIAM BARTON,

11

Petitioner,

12

No. 2:23-cv-02176-TLN-CKD

v.

13

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY,

14

ORDER

15
Respondent.

16
17
18

This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner William Barton’s (“Petitioner”)

19
20

Motion for Relief from an Order.1 (ECF No. 10.) Respondent Superior Court of San Joaquin

21

County (“Respondent”) has not appeared in the matter and did not file an opposition. For the

22

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

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

1

Petitioner is a state prisoner challenging the legality of his incarceration. On October 2,

2

2023, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) but failed to pay the

3

required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) On November 1, 2023, the magistrate judge notified Petitioner

4

that the Petition would be denied unless, within thirty (30) days, Petitioner paid the filing fee or

5

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 4.) Petitioner timely

6

filed an IFP application along with his first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“FAP”).

7

(ECF Nos. 5–6.)

8
9

On November 29, 2023, the magistrate judge made findings and recommended the Court:
(1) grant Petitioner’s IFP application; and (2) dismiss Petitioner’s FAP without prejudice as an

10

unauthorized second or successive petition because Petitioner previously filed a habeas petition in

11

Barton v. California Mens Colony, No. 2:22-cv-01899-DAD-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023)

12

(“F&Rs”). (ECF No. 7.) The F&Rs were served on Petitioner via U.S. mail that same day, and

13

any objections were due within fourteen (14) days. (Id.) Petitioner did not file any objections

14

within the fourteen-day window.
On January 8, 2024, the Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s F&Rs and: (1)

15
16

granted Petitioner IFP status; (2) dismissed the FAP without prejudice; (3) declined to issue a

17

certificate of appealability; and (4) directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.2 (ECF No. 8.)

18

The Clerk of Court entered Judgment that same day. (ECF No. 9.)
On February 12, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant “objections” to the F&Rs, seeking a

19
20

certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 10.) As already discussed, Petitioner’s objections to the

21

F&Rs were due fourteen (14) days after service. Petitioner filed objections more than fourteen

22

(14) days after service, and after the Clerk of Court entered Judgment in this case. Thus,

23

Petitioner’s objections are untimely and improper. Nevertheless, the Court construes Petitioner’s

24

late objections as a motion for relief from judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure 60. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (court must construe pro se

26
27
28

2

The Court notes its prior Order inadvertently dismissed the Petition without prejudice,
rather than with prejudice. (ECF No. 8.) The Court hereby CORRECTS its Order (ECF No. 8)
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to dismiss the Petition with prejudice.
2

1

plaintiff’s pleadings liberally); Fair v. Atchley, No. 2:20-CV-01107-TLN-DB, 2024 WL 2922599,

2

at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2024) (construing untimely objections to F&Rs as a motion for relief

3

from judgment).

4
5
6

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);

7
8
9

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

10
11

(4) the judgment is void;

12
13

(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

14

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

16

Petitioner does not argue any of the first five categories (nor does the Court find them

17

applicable), leaving only the sixth, catchall category. While Petitioner requests the Court issue a

18

certificate of appealability, such a certificate is only appropriate if he has made a substantial

19

showing that his constitutional rights have been (or are being) denied. See 28 U.S.C. §

20

2253(c)(2). In the instant case, Petitioner has failed to make any showing of a constitutional

21

injury, much less a substantial one. Thus, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate he is entitled to

22

relief from the Court’s prior Order.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
3

1

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from an Order (ECF No.

2

10) and CORRECTS its prior Order (ECF No. 8) to dismiss the FAP with prejudice. No further

3

motions will be considered in this closed action.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 24, 2024

6
7
8
9

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4