Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01261/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01261-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS PALOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

D. K. SISTO, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-01261 LJO GSA HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

[Doc. #12]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 11, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be SUMMARILY DENIED and judgment be entered. On October 25,

2007, the undersigned issued an Order adopting the Findings and Recommendation in full, denying

the petition, and directing that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the

same date.

On December 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

Case 1:07-cv-01261-LJO -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/02/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

order, 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 for 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.

Petitioner argues he should be granted relief from judgment for excusable neglect. He states

he failed to timely file objections to the Findings and Recommendation because he entrusted the

matter of his objections to another inmate who mishandled and lost it. Based on this submission, the

Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect pursuant to Rule 60(b). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01261-LJO -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 2