Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02287/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02287-4/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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINH N. NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

ORDER

vs.

GEORGE GIURBINO, Warden,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by Petitioner Linh N. Nguyen. (Doc. # 34). 

Background

On January 16, 2007, Petitioner Linh N. Nguyen (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. section 2254 (“Petition”). (Doc. # 27). On June 7, 2007, United States Magistrate

Judge William McCurine, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the

Petition be denied. (Doc. # 30). On July 31, 2007, the Court issued an Order adopting the

Report and Recommendation and denying the Petition. (Doc. # 31). 

On September 5, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate the Court’s July 31, 2007

Order. (Doc. # 34). Petitioner filed a Declaration in support of the Motion to Vacate,

swearing that he has never received a copy of the June 7, 2007 Report and

Recommendation, and that he has inquired with the Mailroom Supervisor at the prison who

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 37 Filed 11/14/07 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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

informed Petitioner that in June, 2007, he only received “Legal Mail” from his brother. 

Petitioner moves to vacate the Court’s July 31, 2007 Order, and requests the Court to issue

an order that he be served with a copy of the July 7, 2007 Report and Recommendation, be

given an opportunity to submit timely objections, and have the Court render a decision

upon review of any objections submitted by Petitioner. 

On September 13, 2007, Respondent filed a Response to the Motion to Vacate in

which Respondent agreed that if in fact Petitioner did not receive a copy of the Report and

Recommendation, he would be entitled to relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. (Doc. # 36). 

Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court 

may grant a motion for relief from judgment when there is any reason not previously

considered in Rule 60(b) that justifies granting relief from operation of the judgment. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party merits relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if he demonstrates

“extraordinary circumstances” prevented the party from taking timely action to prevent or

correct an erroneous judgment. Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.

2002). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) “normally will not be granted unless the moving party is

able to show both injury and that circumstances beyond its control prevented timely action

to protect its interests.” Id. 

Petitioner contends that on or about August 9, 2007, he received the Court’s July 31,

2007 Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and denying the Petition. Petitioner

contends that he did not become aware of the Report and Recommendation until this date. 

Petitioner contends that upon becoming aware of that a Report and Recommendation was

issued, he inquired with the Mailroom Supervisor of the prison who informed him that no

“Legal Mail” had been delivered to him during June 2007, aside from mail from his

brother. Petitioner contends that he did not file objections to the Report and

Recommendation because he never received a copy of the Report and Recommendation. 

Respondent does not dispute that if Petitioner never received a copy of the Report

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 37 Filed 11/14/07 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 - 05cv2287 WQH (WMc)

and Recommendation, and therefore had no opportunity to file objections thereto, he would

be entitled to relief under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated injury

because he had no opportunity to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and

that his inability to file objections to the Report and Recommendation resulted from

circumstances beyond his control. The Court concludes that Petitioner has demonstrated

extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant relief from judgment because he never

received a copy of the Report and Recommendation and was therefore unable to file

objections. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court GRANTS the Motion for Vacate

Judgment (Doc. # 34). It is further ordered that the Court VACATES the Order adopting

the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 31) filed on July 31, 2007. Any party may file

objections to the Report and Recommendation no later than Monday, December 17, 2007. 

Any party may file a reply to the objections to the Report and Recommendation no later

than Monday, January 7, 2008. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to serve Petitioner

with a copy of this Order and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) filed on June 7,

2007 at the following address:

Linh Nguyen

T-48024

Calipatria State Prison

P.O. Box 5002

Calipatria, CA 92253-5002

DATED: November 14, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02287-WQH-WMC Document 37 Filed 11/14/07 Page 3 of 3