Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02570/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02570-1/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

17cv2570-GPC (JLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv2570-GPC (JLB)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT 

PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B)(4) 

[Dkt. No. 5]

On December 26, 2017, Petitioner, a state petitioner proceeding pro se, submitted a 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request 

to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 1-2. On January 2, 2018, this Court issued an 

order granting Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissing 

the petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent, failure to state a 

cognizable federal claim, and exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Dkt No. 3 at 5. On 

January 12, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate and Set Aside a Void Judgment 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). Dkt. No. 5.

Plaintiff motion appears to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction to render a decision as 

to Plaintiff’s habeas petition. Citing miscellaneous case law, Plaintiff appears to contend 

Case 3:17-cv-02570-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv2570-GPC (JLB)

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

that the Court’s order is void for a lack of jurisdiction. See Mot. at 3. The Court concludes

that it properly had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under the appropriate habeas statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court 

shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody 

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”). Accordingly, the 

Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(4) Motion. 

Petitioner is advised that the Court has dismissed the case without prejudice, 

meaning that Petitioner may cure the defects of pleading identified in the Court’s previous 

Order. See Dkt. No. 3 at 5. In order to have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no later 

than February 28, 2018, file a First Amended Petition which cures the identified defects 

in the Dkt. No. 3 Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02570-GPC-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2