Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02550/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02550-3/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

The court’s July 13, 2007 order was the magistrate judge’s findings and 1

recommendations (Doc. 11). The August 30, 2007 order was the district judge’s order adopting

the findings and recommendations (Doc. 14). 

The court does take notice that petitioner was in administrative segregation during 2

the time to file objections. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL SALAS, Sr.,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-2550-GEB-CMK-P

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS, Warden, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is a motion for

reconsideration of the court’s July 13, 2007 and August 30, 2007 orders. Petitioner did not file 1

objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The court construes this 2

request as a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b).

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02550-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Rule 60(b) allows the court to relieve a party from a final judgment for limited

reasons, including: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In this case,

petitioner does not set forth any claims to justify granting relief from the judgement under Rule

60(b). Petitioner does not make any claims sufficient to find mistake, inadvertence, surprise or

excusable neglect, he does not raise any newly discovered evidence or fraud, nor does he claim

the judgment is void or the judgment has been satisfied. The court does not find there are any

other reasons justifying relief from the judgment. As discussed in the findings and

recommendations, petitioner failed to establish that his Fourth Amendment claims were not fully

and fairly considered in state court. 

However, petitioner’s motion raises the issue that the court erred when it

recommended petitioner’s case for dismissal based on failure to exhaust. The court, in reviewing

the file, notes that the findings and recommendations issued July 12, 2007 does not recommend

the case be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Instead, the findings and

recommendations recommend the case be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to establish his Fourth

Amendment claims were not fully and fairly considered in state court pursuant to Stone v. Powell,

428, U.S. 465 (1976). However, the order issued August 30, 2007 does state that petitioner’s case

is dismissed for failure to exhaust. 

Rule 60(a) allows the court to correct any clerical mistakes in judgments, order or

to other parts of the record at any time. Accordingly, under Rule 60(a), the court will correct the

August 30, 2007 order to reflect that this case was dismissed pursuant to Stone v. Powell.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02550-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is denied; 

2. The order (Doc. 14) dated August 30, 2007 is corrected to reflect this case

was dismissed under Stone v. Powell for failure to establish petitioner’s Fourth Amendment

claims were not fully and fairly considered in state court, not for failure to exhaust state court

remedies;

3. The magistrate judge’s July 13, 2007 findings and recommendations (Doc.

11) are adopted in full;

4. The judgment entered August 30, 2007 is affirmed; and

5. This case remains closed.

September 27, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02550-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/28/07 Page 3 of 3