(HC) Solis v. Harrison
Doc. 19
Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW-LJO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 19
Filed 02/16/2006
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 On September 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 22 recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. On November 30, 23 2005, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and 24 directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date. 25 On January 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Missing Notice” in which 26 Petitioner states that he never received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 27 Recommendation. Petitioner declares he was never given an opportunity to file objections. 28
U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia
ARMANDO SOLIS,
) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) v. ) ) ) ) ) ) C. M. HARRISON, Warden, ) ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________)
1:05-CV-0498 OWW LJO HC ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S DOCUMENT ENTITLED “MISSING NOTICE” AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Doc. #18] ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT [Doc. #17] ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RE-SERVE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #15] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE OBJECTIONS
1
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW-LJO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Document 19
Filed 02/16/2006
Page 2 of 2
Petitioner requests that the Court give him an opportunity to file his objections. Therefore, the Court hereby CONSTRUES Petitioner’s document entitled “Missing Notice” as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Petitioner has shown good cause to relieve him from final judgment.
11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 12 1. 13 reconsideration; 14 2. 15 3. 16 4. 17 Findings and Recommendation; and 18 5. 19 response to the Findings and Recommendation as set forth in the Findings and 20 Recommendation. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia
Petitioner’s document entitled “Missing Notice” is CONSTRUED as a motion for
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; The judgment entered on November 30, 2005, is VACATED; The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-serve Petitioner with the Magistrate Judge’s
Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a
Dated: February 16, 2006 emm0d6
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2