Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02073/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02073-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lee Clarke
Petitioner
Shasta County
Respondent

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE CLARKE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2073 LKK EFB P

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY, 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On April 19, 2006, the court dismissed both the complaint and the petition filed

in this case with instructions to file an amended petition. Petitioner did not do so, and on June 1,

2006, the magistrate judge filed a recommendation that petitioner the action be dismissed. On

August 8, 2006, those findings and recommendations were vacated based on petitioner’s recent

change of address. Petitioner was ordered to file an amended petition within 20 days. Petitioner

again failed to do so and on September 26, 2006, the magistrate judge again filed findings and

recommendations recommending dismissal for failure to file an amended petition. On

November 20, 2006, the undersigned adopted those findings and recommendations and ordered

the case 

dismissed. Nearly one year later on August 27, 2007, petitioner filed a request for relief from

Case 2:05-cv-02073-LKK -EFB Document 42 Filed 02/15/08 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

2

default.

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that relief from a judgment or order

may be had due to clerical mistakes or inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered

evidence, fraud, the voiding or satisfying of the judgment, or any other reason justifying relief

from the operation of the judgment. Petitioner does not allege any of these bases for relief in his

request. Petitioner merely argues that his legal paperwork was seized three times and because

the law library’s “inept copying procedure and manual rewrite obligations being physically and

psychologically exhaustive,” and as such his response to the court order “was secondary to

survival.” The court finds this argument to be unpersuasive.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s August 27, 2007, application

for relief from default is denied.

Dated: February 15, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02073-LKK -EFB Document 42 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2