Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00638/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00638-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Mark A. DuRoss,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-0638 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Scott Kernan, Warden,

et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoOn March 30, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. On June 24, 2005, the court dismissed this action

as untimely and the clerk of the court duly entered judgment. 

Petitioner seeks relief from judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): 

On motion and upon such terms as are just, 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 

Case 2:04-cv-00638-DFL-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/14/05 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

2

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 asserts it is fundamentally unfair for the court

to find the petition in this case untimely after dismissing the

petition in DuRoss v. California State Prison, No. Civ. S-01-2312

DFL PAN P for petitioner’s failure to exhaust. But Supreme Court

precedent requires dismissal of petitions containing no exhausted

claims. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971). Accordingly,

petitioner does not demonstrate that he is entitled to relief

from judgment.

Therefore, petitioner’s July 6, July 26, August 9, and

September 20, 2005, requests are denied.

So ordered.

DATED: 11/11/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00638-DFL-PAN Document 41 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2