Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02064/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02064-0/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

1

 On the same document, petitioner apparently seeks to re-open Case No. 01-1163 WBS

GGH P (which he misnumbers), again without setting forth any colorable grounds. Judgment in

that case was entered on October 23, 2001. As to that case, by order filed on February 19, 2003,

the court made clear that any future filing would be disregarded and that no further order would

issue therein. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMETRIS JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-00-2064 DFL GGH P

vs.

JOHN BLIM, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner has filed a motion purportedly pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 60(b)(1) and

b(4) for relief from final judgment entered by order of this court filed March 23, 2001. The court

notes that, subsequently, on April 12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s petition for the

extraordinary remedy of mandamus, stating that petitioner had not demonstrated that this action

warranted such intervention.1 

Under Rule 60(b), relief from final judgment entered by order of this court may be

sought. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part:

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,

Case 2:00-cv-02064-DFL-GGH Document 18 Filed 11/21/05 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

2

or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to

move from 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. 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 Annunity Company v. Llewellyn,139 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1997).

As the rule states that any motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), inter alia, shall

be made “not more than one year after the judgment....,” it is clear that this request, filed more

than four years after entry of judgment, should be denied on grounds of untimeliness. Similarly,

petitioner makes no showing that as to Rule 60(b)(4), the motion was made “within a reasonable

time” in having been made so long after the case was dismissed. 

This action was initially filed as a habeas petition, although petitioner challenged 

conditions of confinement. Petitioner was informed that if he sought to challenge conditions of

confinement, he would need, as plaintiff, to file a civil rights action and was provided with the

form for doing so. Petitioner failed to do so and the action was dismissed. Petitioner now states

that this action dealt with legal and medical malpractice and that he had difficulty “getting due

process with forms requirement....” Petitioner does not make any substantive or coherent claim

and has not in any manner shown the judgment is void (as is required under Rule 60(b)(4)). As

noted in any event, the motion is untimely. 

 Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for relief from

judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) and/or 60(b)(4), filed on June 22, 2005, be denied as

Case 2:00-cv-02064-DFL-GGH Document 18 Filed 11/21/05 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

3

untimely. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

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

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: 11/21/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jone2064.fr.

Case 2:00-cv-02064-DFL-GGH Document 18 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3