Gene Allen VS State of Nevada, et al.,

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 18 Motion to Vacate Judgment. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 7/9/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Gene Allen VS State of Nevada, et al.,

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 vs. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P e titio n e r also subm itte d a notice of voluntary dism is s a l, which was received and filed on Septem b e r 1 1 , 2003.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GENE ALLEN, Petitioner, 2:03-cv-00770-KJD-PAL ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents.

This long-closed habeas matter comes before the Court on petitioner's motion (#18) to vacate judgment. Final judgment was entered in this matter on September 3, 2003. The Court dismissed the action without prejudice because petitioner failed to comply with the Court's order to either pay the filing fee or submit a properly-completed pauper application.1 Over four years later, in February 2008, petitioner sought to pursue an untimely appeal. Both this Court and the Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. The present motion, filed in July 2010, is untimely. A motion to vacate judgment under subparagraphs (1), (2) or (3) of Rule 60(b) must be filed within a year of entry of judgment, and a motion under the remaining provisions of the rule must be filed within a reasonable time. The Court finds that the present motion was not filed within a reasonable time.

Dockets.Justia.com

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

The motion in any event does not present a viable basis for relief for judgment. Petitioner's argument consists only of conclusory sentences or sentence fragments interspersed with case citations having no application to this case. Petitioner's conclusory references to mail having "made compliance slow but impractical" and to "unexhausted claims may be deleted to now file anew" do not provide a basis to vacate the judgment entered in this case, particularly nearly seven years after entry of judgment.2 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion (#18) to vacate judgment is DENIED. DATED: July 9, 2010

_________________________________ KENT J. DAWSON United States District Judge

P e titio n e r has filed substantially the sam e m o tio n in other closed habeas actions in this District. P e titio n e r 's m e r e placing of "28 USC @ 1 7 4 6 " above his signature does not m a k e the m o tio n one filed p u r s u a n t to a sworn declaration. The conclusory assertions in the m o tio n in any event, sworn or not, do not s e t forth a viable basis for relief from judgm e n t.

2

-2-