Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY BURGESS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00544-AWI-SKO-HC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 44)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RELIEF (DOC. 28) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(DOCS. 27, 31, 43)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302

through 304. On March 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed

Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) to deny Petitioner’s motion

for relief as premature, and to deny Petitioner’s motions for

injunctive relief. The findings and recommendations, which were

served on all parties on the same date, informed the parties that

objections could be filed within thirty (30) days after service,

and that replies to any objections should be served and filed

within fourteen (14) days after service of any objections. 

On April 1, 2013, Petitioner filed timely objections to the

F&R in which he objected and further sought the District Judge to

reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s F&R pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 48 Filed 04/26/13 Page 1 of 2
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

60(b). The objections are limited to the F&R’s discussion of 1

Petitioner’s motion for relief (Doc. No. 28). By in large, the

objections simply restate the text of, and the Adversary

Committee’s comments to, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). 

No reply to Petitioner’s objections has been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the

case. It appears that Petitioner is attempting to apply Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) to matters that did not occur in this Court. 

Matters that occurred in prison hearings are not the proper basis

for a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Ra Chaka v.

Givens, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12272, *46-*47 & n.17 (N.D. Ill.

Aug. 17, 1995). Petitioner has pointed to no orders in this

Court to which Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) would apply.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the

objections, and the Court finds that the F&R is supported by the

record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1) The Findings and Recommendations filed on March 13,

2013, are ADOPTED in full; and 

2) Petitioner’s motion for relief is DENIED; and 

3) Petitioner’s motions for injunctive relief are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 26, 2013 

0m8i78 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Reconsideration of the F&R under Rule 60 is unnecessary because an F&R is not an order. Petitioner need

1

only file objections. The Court will not construe Petitioner’s objections (Doc. No. 47) as a separate Rule 60(b)

motion.

2

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 48 Filed 04/26/13 Page 2 of 2