Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00709/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00709-5/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUFUS GRAY, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09-CV-709 BEN (KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION

FOR ACCEPTANCE OF

UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS 

[Docket No. 72]

vs.

STUART RYAN, et al.,

Respondents.

On November 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending denial of Rufus Gray, Jr.’s Second

Amended Petition for habeas relief. The Court granted Petitioner several extensions

of time in which to file his objections. He did not do so within the allotted time. 

On September 21, 2012, the Court adopted the R&R. Judgment was entered the

same day. 

A notice of appeal was served on October 23, 2012 and filed on October 26,

2012. (See ECF No. 69.) Before the appeal was resolved, Petitioner filed a motion

asking this Court to accept his untimely objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 72.) The

Court construes the latter as a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. Proc. 60(b). The document was served on November 25, 2012 and filed on

November 28, 2012. 

- 1 - 09cv709

Case 3:09-cv-00709-BEN-KSC Document 77 Filed 07/29/13 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

27

28

Petitioner’s appeal is still pending. The question before the Court is whether

it has jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion. The Court concludes

that it does not. 

“As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of

jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood,

127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). A district court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion filed after a notice of appeal. See Katzir

Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M–MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“To seek Rule 60(b) relief during the pendency of an appeal, the proper procedure is

to ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and

then move [the Court of Appeal], if appropriate, for remand of the case.” Williams

v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation

marks omitted). Petitioner did not observe this procedure. As a result, the Court

lacks jurisdiction to resolve the motion. See Katzir Floor, 394 F.3d at 1148

(vacating the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion on the grounds that it

lacked jurisdiction). Petitioner’s motion is therefore dismissed.

//

//

//

- 2 - 09cv709

Case 3:09-cv-00709-BEN-KSC Document 77 Filed 07/29/13 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

27

28

Even if Petitioner had followed the proper procedure, the Court would not be

inclined to grant the motion. “Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final

judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances

including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545

U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Petitioner states that because of a prison lockdown, he did not

have meaningful access to the law library and could not file timely objections. 

Petitioner was given numerous extensions of time in which to file objections. In the

Court’s view, the circumstances do not warrant reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2013

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 3 - 09cv709

Case 3:09-cv-00709-BEN-KSC Document 77 Filed 07/29/13 Page 3 of 3