Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02918/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02918-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL CORJASSO, III, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. KNIPP, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-02918-KJM-CKD P 

ORDER 

On December 16, 2014, petitioner Michael Corjasso filed an application for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 22, 

2014, the magistrate judge ordered Mr. Corjasso to file a request to proceed in forma pauperis or 

pay the filing fee within 30 days. ECF No. 3. In her order, the magistrate judge warned Mr. 

Corjasso that his failure to comply would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

Id. The order was served on Mr. Corjasso by mail on December 22, 2014. 

Mr. Corjasso did not comply with the December 22, 2014 order, so the magistrate 

judge issued Findings and Recommendations on February 3, 2015 recommending that the action 

be dismissed without prejudice and providing that petitioner could file objections within fourteen 

days after being served. ECF No. 4. On February 20, 2015, the Findings and Recommendations 

Case 2:14-cv-02918-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/12/16 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 

2

were returned as undeliverable mail, and Mr. Corjasso was directed to file a notice of change of 

address. 

On March 19, 2015, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations in full and dismissed the action without prejudice. ECF No. 5. This court 

noted that Mr. Corjasso had not objected to the Findings and Recommendations, and that even 

though the mail had been returned as undeliverable, it was Mr. Corjasso’s responsibility to keep 

the court apprised of his current address. Id. This court’s March 19, 2015 order was served on 

Mr. Corjasso by mail. ECF No. 6. 

On November 16, 2015, Mr. Corjasso filed the current Motion for Relief from 

Judgment, invoking Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 7. He requests 

that the court set aside its order dismissing his petition based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, 

or excusable neglect, because he did not have an opportunity to object to the magistrate judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations. See id. Mr. Corjasso contends his address never changed 

during the course of the litigation, and prison officials had wrongfully failed to give him the 

Findings and Recommendations. See id. 

The court finds that Mr. Corjasso has not demonstrated that relief from judgment 

is warranted under Rule 60(b). The only mail returned as undeliverable was the magistrate 

judge’s Findings and Recommendations. The magistrate judge had previously given Mr. 

Corjasso notice that she would recommend dismissal if he did not file a request to proceed in 

forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 30 days of the December 22, 2014 Order, and Mr. 

Corjasso has not provided an explanation for his failure to comply with that order. In addition, 

the record reflect that this court’s order dismissing the petition was successfully delivered to Mr. 

Corjasso by mail on March 19, 2015, and Mr. Corjasso has not provided an explanation for 

waiting eight months to bring the current Motion for Relief from Judgment. Accordingly, Mr. 

Corjasso’s Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 11, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02918-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2