Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01438/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01438-1/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

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

NEANO MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN SOTO,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-1438 TLN GGH P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 22, 2014, the district court adopted this court’s 

findings and recommendations, recommending that the petition be dismissed for failure to 

exhaust state remedies. Judgment was entered at that time. On September 8, 2014, petitioner 

filed a “motion for reconsideration” which the court construes as a motion for relief from 

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from judgment and to re-open his case in 

limited circumstances, “including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2645-46 (2005). Rule 60(b) provides in relevant 

part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a 

party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

Case 2:14-cv-01438-TLN-GGH Document 9 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 3
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

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence 

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial

under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or 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. The motion shall be made within a 

reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one 

year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

“Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure are addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Allmerica Financial 

Life Insurance and Annuity Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997).

Petitioner explains that he has been hampered in bringing to the court’s attention the fact 

that he has exhausted all of his state remedies because he is a “participant in the Mental Health 

Services Delivery System (MHSDS) at the Enhanced Outpatient (EOP) level of care, which is “a 

special program for prisoners who are gravely mentally disable[d].” Petitioner adds that he has a 

fourth grade education and has had to rely on jailhouse lawyers. 

The attachments to the motion include the first two pages of a petition filed with the 

Supreme Court of California on May 2, 2014, and that court’s denial, filed July 9, 2014. The 

instant federal petition was filed on June 16, 2014, and dismissed on August 22, 2014. Because it 

now appears from the limited attachments that petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies, 

his motion for relief should be granted, and this case should proceed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that: The Clerk of the Court is directed 

to serve a copy of these findings and recommendations on the Attorney General of the State of 

California.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, filed September 8, 2014, construed as a motion 

for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), (ECF No. 8), be granted;

2. The order of dismissal and judgment entered August 22, 2014, be vacated; and

3. This action proceed with service of the petition.

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01438-TLN-GGH Document 9 Filed 09/24/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: September 24, 2014

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Mitch1438.60b

Case 2:14-cv-01438-TLN-GGH Document 9 Filed 09/24/14 Page 3 of 3