Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01278/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01278-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
Daniel Fernandez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL FERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-01278-OWW-JLT HC 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER'S

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

(Doc. 27)

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 30, 2008, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed 

for failure to comply with the Court's orders. On August 15, 2008, these Findings and

Recommendations were adopted by the District Court and judgment was entered. (Docs. 16 & 17). 

Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal on September 15, 2008 (Doc. 20). The District Court thereafter

granted a Certificate of Appealability on October 14, 2008. (Doc. 25). On June 15, 2009, Petitioner

filed the instant motion for relief from judgment. (Doc. 27). Shortly thereafter, on July 16, 2009, the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also granted a Certificate of Appealability. 

(Doc. 28). On September 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment of this Court and

remanded the case for further proceedings on the petition. (Doc. 29). On that same date, this Court

1

Case 1:07-cv-01278-OWW -JMD Document 32 Filed 02/03/10 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

administratively re-opened the case.

Because the order of the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and this Court subsequently reopened the case for further proceedings, the relief Petitioner sought has already been granted. 

Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment is now moot.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 27), is DENIED as MOOT; and,

2. The case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01278-OWW -JMD Document 32 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 2