Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00082-0/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

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Timothy Ray Jones,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 02-0082 LKK PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

D. L. Runnels,

Respondent.

-oOoMarch 30, 2004, the court dismissed petitioner’s application

for a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground it was untimely.

Petitioner has filed a motion for relief from judgment. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). 

Petitioner asserts appellate counsel failed to notify

petitioner when the California Supreme Court denied his petition

for review, causing petitioner to file his federal petition late. 

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

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court

Case 2:02-cv-00082-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 06/03/05 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

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.

The February 4, 2004, findings and recommendations found

petitioner learned of the California Supreme Court’s decision in

time to seek federal habeas relief but delayed in his attempts to

obtain his file from counsel so he could seek state postconviction relief, which would have tolled the federal limitation

period. Petitioner offers no reason to modify this finding. 

Petitioner does not demonstrate he is entitled to relief

from judgment.

For these reasons, petitioner’s April 8, 2005, motion for

relief from judgment should be denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Case 2:02-cv-00082-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 06/03/05 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

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00082-LKK -PAN Document 23 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 3