Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01502/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01502-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARION A. CARR, No. 2:06-cv-01502-MCE-EFB-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

MATTHEW KRAMER, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Currently pending before the court is petitioner’s October 18, 2007, motion for relief from

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

In the application for habeas relief, petitioner challenged a decision of the California

Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”) finding that he was not suitable for parole. He asserted that he

was entitled to relief under the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment and state law. Respondents moved to dismiss this action on the ground

that petitioner failed to allege any cognizable claim. On August 15, 2007, the magistrate judge

recommended that respondent’s motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that respondent

be directed to answer the petition. 

Case 2:06-cv-01502-MCE -EFB Document 21 Filed 12/19/07 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

2

Respondent timely filed objections, asserting that the magistrate judge listed a claim that

petitioner did not in fact make and erred in finding that petitioner stated claims under the Ex Post

Facto Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 28,

2007, the district judge found respondent’s objections to be well-taken, and granted the motion to

dismiss. The Clerk of the Court duly entered judgment. Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the

September 28, 2007, order and relief from the judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): 

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 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.

It appears that petitioner argues that his constitutional and state-law claims are in fact

cognizable. However, he does not articulate any facts or cite to any law showing that he is

entitled to relief from judgment. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s October 18, 2007, motion is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: December 18, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01502-MCE -EFB Document 21 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2