Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06061/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06061-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scot Eric Pinkerton
Petitioner
M. Yarborough
Defendant

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 Petitioner asserted, incorrectly, that the Court had issued Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc. 

1

27.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOT ERIC PINKERTON,

Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-6061 DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT PURSUANT

TO RULE 60(b) OF THE FEDERAL RULES

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

[Doc. 29]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On June 13, 2005, the Court denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and

judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. On August 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for

an extension of time to file objections to the Court’s order. On August 23, 2005, the Court 1

discharged Petitioner’s request to file objections and denied any request for an extension of time

to file a notice of appeal. (Court Doc. 28.) 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his motion, Petitioner argues that due to his

placement in the administrative segregation unit he was denied access to the law library, was

Case 1:03-cv-06061-DLB Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

2

unaware that the Court’s June 13, 2005, was a final order, and due to his lack of the legal

procedure and law he was unable to file a notice of appeal. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the

district court. The rule permits the Court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on

grounds of: (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 ... of an adverse party, ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from

the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for

reasons (1), (2), and (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was

entered or taken. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of

the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir.1987). To succeed in

a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of

Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). 

The district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if: 

(I) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this

Rule 4(a) expires; and

(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time

prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good

cause. 

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(I), (ii). 

The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the

date when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all the following conditions are satisfied:

(A) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 7

days after the moving party receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier;

(B) the court finds that the moving party was entitled to notice of the entry

of the judgment or order sought to be appealed but did not receive the notice from

the district court or any party within 21 days after entry; and

(C) No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the

prescribed time or 10 days after the date when the order granting the motion is

entered, whichever is later. 

Case 1:03-cv-06061-DLB Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 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

27

28

3

Fed.R.App.P 4(a)(6)

Petitioner’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal is governed by the Rule 4(a)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, not Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioner’s current motion for relief from judgment raises the same arguments as those raised in

his prior August 18, 2005, motion for extension of time to file objections and/or notice of appeal. 

In the Court’s order of August 23, 2005, the Court noted that although the request for an

extension of time was filed within 180 days after the judgment was entered, Petitioner indicated

that he received the Court’s June 13, 2005, order on June 16, 2005, three days after it was issued. 

Thus, the Court can not grant Petitioner an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Further,

the fact that Petitioner believed the Court’s June 13, 2005, order was only a recommendation and

not a final order does not support Petitioner’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Petitioner

has failed to demonstrate relief under either Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 19, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06061-DLB Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 3