Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00498/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00498-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. M. Harrison
Respondent
Armando Solis
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO SOLIS, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

)

C. M. HARRISON, Warden, )

)

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-0498 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S

DOCUMENT ENTITLED “MISSING

NOTICE” AS MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #18]

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT

[Doc. #17] 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO RE-SERVE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION 

[Doc. #15]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE OBJECTIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. On November 30,

2005, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and

directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.

On January 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Missing Notice” in which

Petitioner states that he never received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation. Petitioner declares he was never given an opportunity to file objections. 

Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 02/16/06 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Petitioner requests that the Court give him an opportunity to file his objections. Therefore, the Court

hereby CONSTRUES Petitioner’s document entitled “Missing Notice” as a motion for

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b). 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court 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.

Petitioner has shown good cause to relieve him from final judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s document entitled “Missing Notice” is CONSTRUED as a motion for

reconsideration;

2. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

3. The judgment entered on November 30, 2005, is VACATED;

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-serve Petitioner with the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendation; and

5. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a

response to the Findings and Recommendation as set forth in the Findings and

Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW -WMW Document 19 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2