Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01503-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES EARL PHILLIP,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11cv1503 BTM(KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENT

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Respondent.

On or about January 17, 2014, Petitioner submitted a motion for relief

from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). (The

Court has ordered that the motion be filed nunc pro tunc to the date

received.) The Court denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

Magistrate Judge Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation on

the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 17, 2012, and the Court

issued an order adopting that report and denying the petition on March 15,

2013. Judgment was entered on the same date. (Doc. 16.) On April 26,

2013, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with this Court (Doc. 47). The

appeal is pending, and the Court has received no mandate or other update

on its status. 

Petitioner’s motion requests more than mere clarification of this

Court’s final judgment. It asks the Court to vacate the judgment, arguing,

1 11cv1503 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:11-cv-01503-BTM-KSC Document 52 Filed 03/06/14 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

inter alia, that the Court applied an incorrect waiver analysis to his claim that

he was improperly deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. 

Mot. at 4. Because this is a substantive request for relief, as opposed to a

simple request for clarification, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Motion.

Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.3d 648, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1991); Smith

v, Lujan, 588 F.2d 1304, 1307 (9th Cir. 1979). The motion is accordingly

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2014 __________________________

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 11cv1503 BTM(KSC)

Case 3:11-cv-01503-BTM-KSC Document 52 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 2