Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01331/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01331-0/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 – 15cv1331

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

CARLOS RIOS,

Petitioner,

Case No. 15-cv-01331-BAS(RBB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM 

JUDGMENT (ECF No. 25);

(2) TERMINATING AS MOOT 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

A CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

(ECF No. 27); AND

(3) DENYING PETITIONER’S 

LETTER REQUEST 

(ECF No. 31)

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Respondents.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Carlos Rios’s motion for relief from 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. (ECF No. 25.) For the 

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request.

On February 8, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court issue an order granting 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21.) No objections were filed to the R&R.

On March 29, 2016, the Court approved and adopted the R&R in its entirety and 

granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 22.) Accordingly, the Clerk of 

the Court entered judgment against Petitioner. (ECF No. 23.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01331-BAS-RBB Document 32 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 15cv1331

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

Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 

25.) Petitioner argues relief from judgment is appropriate because he did not receive 

and was not aware of the R&R prior to it being approved and adopted by this Court. 

(ECF No. 25 at 2:6–8.) To support this statement, Petitioner submits copies of several 

grievances that he has filed with the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation concerning alleged interference with the delivery of his legal mail. (Id.

at Exs. A & B.) He also notes that he has been litigating a separate action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Respondent and various employees of the Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility in which he claims the defendants have interfered with the 

delivery of his legal mail. (Id. at 2:25–3:2; see also Rios v. Paramo, No. 13-cv-02455-

WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 10, 2013)). Petitioner also submits a declaration in 

which he declares under penalty of perjury that he did not receive the R&R. (ECF 

No. 25 at 7–8.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows a court to relieve a party from 

a final judgment or order for any reason that justifies relief. “A party moving for relief 

under Rule 60(b)(6) ‘must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his 

control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.’” 

Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Latshaw v. Trainer 

Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)). The Ninth Circuit has 

cautioned that Rule 60(b)(6) is to be “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 

prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 

circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an 

erroneous judgment.” Id. (quoting Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103).

Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated relief from judgment is 

appropriate. Petitioner states under penalty of perjury that he did not receive the R&R 

prior to the Court adopting it. He also demonstrates that he has previously raised 

concerns over potential interference with the delivery of his legal mail. The Court 

does note, however, that Petitioner is receiving at least some of his legal mail, which 

Case 3:15-cv-01331-BAS-RBB Document 32 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 15cv1331

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

is demonstrated by the fact that he is aware of the Court’s Order adopting the R&R. 

Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court will vacate the judgment and its 

Order adopting the R&R to allow Petitioner the opportunity to object to the R&R. 

See, e.g., Smith v. Adams, No. 109-CV-00292-GSA PC, 2009 WL 3789054, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (setting aside judgment based on the plaintiff prisoner’s 

claim that prison staff interfered with the delivery of his mail). Accordingly, as 

ordered below, Petitioner must file any objections to the R&R no later than July 22, 

2016. 

In light of the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall mail another copy of the Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 21) to Petitioner. 

2. Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 25) is 

GRANTED. 

3. The Clerk’s judgment (ECF No. 23) is VACATED, and the Clerk 

shall reopen this case. 

4. The Court’s Order adopting the Report and Recommendation (ECF 

No. 22) is VACATED. 

5. Petitioner may file written objections to the Report and 

Recommendation with the Court and serve a copy on all parties 

on or before July 22, 2016. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the 

objections shall be filed and served on or before July 29, 2016. 

Petitioner is advised that a failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal 

of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991).

6. Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 27) is 

TERMINATED as moot because the Court has set aside the 

Case 3:15-cv-01331-BAS-RBB Document 32 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 15cv1331

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

judgment for which Petitioner seeks a certificate to appeal from. 

7. Petitioner’s letter request for a copy of the docket (ECF No. 31) to 

determine whether his motions have been resolved is DENIED in 

light of the fact that Petitioner will receive a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-01331-BAS-RBB Document 32 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 4