Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01129/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01129-6/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

07CV1129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOMCHIT JOY NASIRICHAMPANG, Civil No. 07cv1129-L(AJB)

 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

v.

VICTOR M. ALMAGER, Warden,

 

 Respondent.

Petitioner Somchit Joy Nasirichampang, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). On January 25, 2008, the Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss

the petition as untimely. Any objections to the Report and Recommendation were due to be filed

no later than February 15, 2008. Upon review of the Report and Recommendation and having

received no objections, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation on March 3, 2008. A

judgment was entered on the same date. On April 4, 2008, the court received a Motion for

Relief from Judgment from Petitioner. For the reasons which follow, the motion is DENIED.

In a supporting declaration, Petitioner asserts he did not file objections because he did not

receive a copy of the Report and Recommendation and requests the court to rescind the

Case 3:07-cv-01129-L-AJB Document 20 Filed 04/15/08 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 07CV1129

judgment to allow him to file objections. Petitioner maintains that “[b]ased on current prison

policy and procedure, a prisoner’s signature is required prior to receiving all confidential or legal

mail.” (Decl. at 3.) Petitioner claims that this would allow the court to verify his claim. (Id.) 

However, no log is attached to the declaration. Furthermore, any such log would show that

Petitioner has not signed for receipt of legal mail on a certain date. The log would not show, for

example, if Petitioner declined to accept legal mail. Petitioner’s declaration does not preclude

this possibility.

The court’s docket shows that except for the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner has

timely received all orders of the court, including the March 3 order adopting the Report and

Recommendation and related Judgment. All orders of the court, including the Report and

Recommendation, the order adopting it and the Judgment have been sent to the same address. 

The mailing address and the fact of mailing in each instance are documented in the court’s

docket. In cases of failed delivery, the court customarily receives and dockets a notice of nondelivery. No such notices have been received in this case. If Petitioner had any questions about

the status of the case, he could obtain the information by calling the office of the Clerk of Court,

the chambers if the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case, or accessing the court’s docket

electronically, either personally or with the assistance of the prison litigation coordinator. 

Based on the foregoing, the court does not find Petitioner’s declaration sufficient to rebut

the presumption of mailing. See Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2007). Petitioner’s

motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 15, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-01129-L-AJB Document 20 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 2