Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00253/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00253-9/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 

BYRON EUGENE JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-cv-0253 LKK KJN P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 14, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for a relief 

from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF No. 80). In this motion, 

petitioner alleges that this court failed to process his appeal from the judgment entered on March 

28, 2011. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s motion be 

denied. 

 Court records indicate that on December 14, 2010, the undersigned recommended that 

petitioner’s application for a petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (ECF No. 63.) On 

March 2, 2011, petitioner filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the findings 

and recommendations. (ECF No. 67.) On March 31, 2011, the Clerk of the Court processed this 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 72.) 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00253-JAM-KJN Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 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

On March 28, 2011, the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton adopted the findings and 

recommendations and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 69, 70.) On April 6, 2011, petitioner 

filed his notice of appeal from the judgment. (ECF No. 76.) The Clerk of the Court for this court 

processed the appeal from the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 77.) 

 Because the court docket reflects that the Clerk of the Court processed petitioner’s appeal 

from the judgment, petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment should be denied.1 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, based on the retirement of the Honorable 

Lawrence K. Karlton, the Clerk of the Court is directed to reassign this action to a new district 

judge; 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment 

(ECF No. 80) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 22, 2015 

 

John253.ord 

 

1

 On May 10, 2011, the Ninth Circuit dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the findings and 

recommendations for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 75.) While this court’s docket contains no 

record regarding the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of petitioner’s appeal from the judgment, this 

court recently contacted the Ninth Circuit regarding the appeal from the judgment. All future 

inquiries by petitioner regarding this appeal should be made to the Ninth Circuit. 

Case 2:04-cv-00253-JAM-KJN Document 82 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 2