T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WAL T E R J OH NS ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M . L. EV A N S, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15623 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 2 2 3 - J A MDA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y15, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: T H O M A S , M cK E O W N , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W a l t e rJ ohns on appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof habe a s c orpus . H e r a i s e s as i ngl e i s s ue on appe a l : w he the rthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge e rr e d a s am a tte ro f

la w w h e n h e f

a ile d to c o n s tru e ap r o s e f ilin g , s ty le d a s aR u le 

# FI LED JU N 11 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

6 0 ( b ) m o tio n , a s J o h n s o n ’s a tte m p t to a m e n d h is p e n d in g h ab e a s p e titio n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. John son fi l ed a pro se m ot i on i n A ug ust20 05 (the “ A ug ustm ot i on ”) w hen hi s habe a s pe t i t i on w a s pe ndi ng. J ohns on s ty l e d tha tdoc um e nta s a“ M ot i on f or R e lie f F r o m J u d g m e n t/V a c a te J u d g m e n t F .R .C .P . 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 6 ) V o id J udgm e nt( F r aud) V a c a t e S t a t e J udgm e ntF . R . C . P . 60( b) ( H ) B r a dy . ” I n i t , J ohns on re i t er at ed atl ea ston e argum entfr om hi s habea s pet i t i on and rai se d add i t i on al i nst ance s of i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . H e a l so as se rt ed thatD N A evi dence r e c o v e r e d a t th e s c e n e d id n o t p o in t to h im , a n d a tta c h e d a n e a r lie rm o tio n f r o m h is s t a t e appe l l a t e c ouns e l tha tf aul t e d hi s tr i a l c ouns e l f orw i thdr a w i ng a“ he a tof pa s s i on” de f

e ns e . J ohns on a s ke d the di s tr i c tc ourt“ t o rul e on thi s m ot i on 60( b) be f or e i trul e s on the w r i tof habe a s c orpus . ” T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge de ni e d the A ug ustm ot i on on M ar ch 3, 20 06 , expl ai ni ng thatF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 60( b) w a s a n i nappr opr i a t e ve hi c l e t o c ha l l e nge as t a t e c ourtc onvi c t i on. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge no t ed, ho w ever , that“ pet i t i on er[w ou l d] be perm i tt ed t o p roce ed w i th [ hi s ] habe a s a c t i on i n w hi c h he c ha l l e nge s the s t a t e c ourtj udgm e ntof conv i ct i on on the grou nd s of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l . ” J oh nson re qu es t ed re consi dera t i on on A pri l 19 , 20 06 , bu tthe di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed thatre qu es tas u n t i m el y.3

A p ar ty w h o “fails to file ti m ely o b jectio n s to a m ag istrate ju d g e’s n o n d is p o s itiv e o r d e rw ith th e d is tr ic t ju d g e to w h o m th e c a s e is a s s ig n e d f o r f e its its ri gh tt o app el l at e r evi ew of thatorder. ” Si m ps on v . L e arA s tr oni c s C or p. , 77 F . 3d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ; s e e al s o G le nbr ook

H om e ow ne rs A s s ’ n v . T

ahoe R egi on alP lan ni ngA gency , 42 5 F . 3d 61 1, 61 9 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng thatappeal o f a d isco v ery d en ial w as fo re clo se d b y p ar ti es ’ failu re to o b ject to a m ag istrate’s o rd er w i th i n th e sp eci fi ed t i m e). F ed eral R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ced u re 7 2 (a) req u i res a di s tr i c tc ourtt o c ons i de ra ny t i m e l yobj e c t i ons t o am a gi s tr a t e ’ s or de ron a n o n d is p o s itiv e m o tio n a n d “m o d if yo rs e t a s id e a n yp a rt o f th e o r d e rth a t is c le a r ly erroneou s or i s c on traryt o l aw . ” I tcaut i on s thata party “ m ayno tas si gn as error” a def ec tno tobj ec t ed t o i n a t i m el y m anner. B ec ause John son d i d n ott i m el y obj ec t to th e m a g is tr a te ’s o r d e rin d is tr ic t c o u rt, h e h a s f o r f e ite d h is r ig h t to ap p e lla te r e v i e w. J ohns on a l t e rna t i ve l y c ont e nds tha thi s A ugus tm ot i on w a s r e a l l yam ot i on to a m e n d . A m o tio n to a m e n d is a ls o n o n d is p o s itiv e . U . S. D om i na tor, Inc. v. Fa c to r ySh ip R o b e r t E . R e s o

ff , 76 8 F . 2d 10 99 , 11 02 n. 1 (9th C i r. 19 85 ) s up er se ded by rul e on othe rgr ounds a s r e c ogni z e d i n Si m ps on , 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 4 ( n o tin g th a t a m o tio n f o rle a v e to a m e n d w a s p r o p e r lytr e a te d a s n o n d is p o s itiv e ) . T h u s , e v e n if4

the m a gi s tr a t e s houl d ha ve c ha r a c t e r i z e d the A ugus tm ot i on i n the m a nne rJ ohns on s u g g e s t s , J o h n s o n ’ s f

a i l u r e t o t i m e l ys e e kr e v i e w a g a i n f o r e c l o s e s r e v i e w. J ohns on r e l i a nc e on R ob bi ns v. Carey , 48 1 F . 3d 11 43 , 11 47 (9th C i r. 20 07 ); M a rt i n ez v. Y

l st , 952 F . 2d 1153, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ; a nd P ol lard v. GE O , Inc. , 62 9 F . 3d 84 3, 85 3 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), i s m i spl ac ed because ea ch of tho se ca se s i nvol ve d apa rty ’ s f

a i l ur e t o obj e c tt o am a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on on a d i sp o si t i v e m att er, n o ta n o n d i sp o si t i v e o rd er. N o n e o f th ese cases d i scu ss appel l at e r evi ew of a m agi stra t e’ s det erm i nat i on of no n-di sposi t i ve i ss ues of l aw w i tho utpri or re vi ew by the di stri ctj ud ge. AF F I RME D.