Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00022/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00022-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MENDEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, California

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State

Prison,

Respondent. /

No. C 03-00022 WHA

ORDER RE LETTER OF

DECEMBER 30, 2005, FROM

PETITIONER’S COUNSEL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner’s counsel has written the Court, asking it to withdraw or vacate its order

denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner’s counsel asks that the

Court then refile the same order. He states that the purpose of doing so would be to reset the

10-day clock during which parties are allowed to make motions under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 52(b) (to amend findings of facts and judgment accordingly) and 59(e) (to alter or

amend a judgment). Such a maneuver by the Court would be a gimmick designed to

circumvent the jurisdictional limits on its powers under Rules 52(b) and 59(e). The time during

which petitioner could file such motions expired January 3, 2006. The request therefore is

DENIED. 

STATEMENT

On December 16, 2005, the Court denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus and entered a separate judgment in respondent’s favor. On that same day, the two

Case 3:03-cv-00022-WHA Document 53 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

documents were emailed to counsel for petitioner and for respondent. On December 28, 2005,

the Clerk of the Court sent another copy of the order to petitioner’s counsel via U.S. mail. He

received it December 29, and responded with the instant request on December 30 (Letter from

Richard Such, petitioner’s counsel, to the Court (Dec. 30, 2005)). 

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) allows a court to amend its findings of fact, make

additional findings and amend the judgment accordingly if a party files a motion for such action

no later than ten days after entry of judgment. Likewise, parties must file any motion to alter or

amend a judgment not later than ten days after entry of judgment. FRCP 59(e). 

In computing any period of time prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

day of the act from which the period of time begins is not included. The last day of the period

is, however, included, unless it falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, or when weather or

other conditions have made the clerk’s office inaccessible. When the period of time is less than

eleven days, only normal work days are included. FRCP 6(a). The designated period of time

cannot be enlarged for actions under FRCP 52(b) and 59(e). FRCP 6(b). 

In the instant case, the ten-day periods began on (and included) December 19, 2005,

covered the five days of that work week, the four days of the following work week (which

began December 27) and January 3. The last day on which petitioner could file motions under

FRCP 52(b) and 59(e) was January 3, 2006, contrary to the assertion by petitioner’s counsel

that the period had run by the time the Court’s order was mailed to him on December 28. He

had five days to work on such motions before they were due. In any case, the Court provided

notice to petitioner’s counsel of its order via email just after noon on December 16, 2005. 

The Court must strictly construe the ten-day limitation under Rule 59(e). McConnell v.

Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n Med. and Benefits Plan, 778 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The Court has no power to extend it; the deadline limits the Court’s jurisdiction. Harman v.

Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993); Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1467 (9th Cir.

1983). The ten-day period under Rule 52(b) also is a “strict” one that, once passed, deprived

Case 3:03-cv-00022-WHA Document 53 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the Court of jurisdiction to consider the Rule 52(b) motion. Gribble v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1173,

1174–75 (5th Cir. 1980). 

One avenue still open to petitioner is a FRCP 60 motion for relief from the judgment and

from the order denying the petition. Rule 60 motions do not toll the period during which an

appeal must be taken, unlike Rule 52(b) and Rule 59(e) motions.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, petitioner’s request is DENIED. In the future, all such

requests must come in the form of a motion, to assure proper documentation and a normal

opportunity for the other party to oppose it. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-00022-WHA Document 53 Filed 01/04/06 Page 3 of 3