Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01506/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01506-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Washington
Petitioner
J. Woodford
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

J. WOODFORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1506 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO VACATE JUDGMENT

[Doc. 14]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 23, 2005, this action was transferred to this Court from the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. By order of January 30, 2006, the Court

directed Petitioner to submit an in forma pauperis application. On March 7, 2006, the Court

granted Petitioner an extension of time to submit the application. Petitioner failed to comply

with the Court’s order. Therefore, on May 1, 2006, the Court issued Findings and

Recommendations recommending that the action be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with the Court’s order. Petitioner did not file objections or otherwise respond to the

Recommendation. On July 31, 2006, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full,

and judgment was entered on that date. 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to vacate judgment, filed August 21,

2006. (Court Doc. 14.) Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Court Doc.

Case 1:05-cv-01506-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/18/06 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

15.) 

In his motion to vacate, Petitioner contends that he “was intentionally delayed and denied

in sending In Forma Pauperis Form and Prison officials Failure to send $90.00 check on

4/11/06.” (Motion, at 1.) Petitioner contends that prison officials withheld the ledgersheet for

four and a half months. (Id.) Attached to his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Petitioner

attaches a copy of his trust account statement activity. (Court Doc. 15.) Petitioner circles a cash

withdrawal on April 11, 2006 for $90.00. (Court Doc. 15.) 

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s motion to vacate and motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and finds that there is insufficient evidence to vacate the judgment. Pursuant to Rule

60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant relief from judgment on the

following grounds:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, 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 not demonstrated that relief from judgment is warranted. First, Petitioner

never filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations raising the claim that prison

officials had failed to send the $90.00 check, withdrawn from his account on April 11, 2006.

Petitioner waited until after the Findings and Recommendations were issued and adopted, and

judgment was entered, to raise the claim for the first time. Petitioner offers no reason for such

delay in failing to raise this claim, that he was obviously well aware of after the Court issued the

Findings and Recommendations on May 1, 2006. Although Petitioner contends that prison

officials withheld the ledger sheet for four and a half months, he was certainly free to raise his

claims without such sheet prior to prison officials release of it. Second, Petitioner submits only a

copy of his inmate trust account statement, which reflects that there was a cash withdrawal on

Case 1:05-cv-01506-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/18/06 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

April 11, 2006, for $90.00, however, the statement gives no indication what the withdrawal of

the funds were for or to whom the funds were to be sent. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner’s

motion and evidence fail to demonstrate that relief under Rule 60(b) is warranted, and

Petitioner’s motion is therefore DENIED. All other pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01506-AWI-DLB Document 16 Filed 09/18/06 Page 3 of 3