Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06106/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06106-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DESHA’ CARTER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

A. K. SCRIBNER, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-6106 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO

F.R.C.P. 60(b)

[Doc. 36]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. Judgement was entered in this case on January

19, 2007. On February 1, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On March 26, 2007,

Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, which is currently pending before the court.

In Davis v. Yageo Corp., - - - F.3d - - - , 2007 WL 624719 (9 Cir. 2007), the Ninth th

Circuit explained as follows:

Once an appeal is filed, the district court no longer has jurisdiction to consider

motions to vacate judgment. Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772

Case 1:04-cv-06106-WMW Document 38 Filed 04/02/07 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

(9th Cir.1986). However, a district court may entertain and decide a Rule 60(b)

motion after notice of appeal is filed if the movant follows a certain procedure, which

is to “ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it,

and then move this court, if appropriate, for remand of the case.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204

F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that a district court order declining to entertain

or grant a Rule 60(b) motion is not a final determination on the merits); Scott v.

Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that the district court's denial

of a request to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion is interlocutory and not appealable and

that if the court is inclined to grant the motion, the movant first should request limited

remand from the appellate court); Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc. (In re Crateo, Inc.),

536 F.2d 862, 869 (9th Cir.1976) (declining to order a remand after the district court

declined to entertain the Rule 60(b) motion).

Because Petitioner has not followed the procedure outlined above, his motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) is HEREBY DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner’s

right to bring a properly supported motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06106-WMW Document 38 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 2