(HC) Solis v. Harrison Doc.

19

Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW-LJO Document 19 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 ARMANDO SOLIS, ) 1:05-CV-0498 OWW LJO HC
)
10 ) ORDER CONSTRUING PETITIONER’S
Petitioner, ) DOCUMENT ENTITLED “MISSING
11 ) NOTICE” AS MOTION FOR
) RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING
12 ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
) [Doc. #18]
13 v. )
) ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT
14 ) [Doc. #17]
)
15 ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
) TO RE-SERVE FINDINGS AND
16 C. M. HARRISON, Warden, ) RECOMMENDATION
) [Doc. #15]
17 )
Respondent. ) ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE
18 ____________________________________) TO FILE OBJECTIONS
19
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
21
On September 15, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that
22
recommended the petition be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. On November 30,
23
2005, the undersigned adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full, dismissed the case, and
24
directed that judgment be entered. The Clerk of Court entered judgment on the same date.
25
On January 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Missing Notice” in which
26
Petitioner states that he never received a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
27
Recommendation. Petitioner declares he was never given an opportunity to file objections.
28

U .S. D istrict C ourt

E. D . C alifornia 1

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:05-cv-00498-OWW-LJO Document 19 Filed 02/16/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 Petitioner requests that the Court give him an opportunity to file his objections. Therefore, the Court
2 hereby CONSTRUES Petitioner’s document entitled “Missing Notice” as a motion for
3 reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 60(b).
4 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
5 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
6 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
7 (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
8 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
9 have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment.
10
Petitioner has shown good cause to relieve him from final judgment.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
12
1. Petitioner’s document entitled “Missing Notice” is CONSTRUED as a motion for
13
reconsideration;
14
2. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;
15
3. The judgment entered on November 30, 2005, is VACATED;
16
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-serve Petitioner with the Magistrate Judge’s
17
Findings and Recommendation; and
18
5. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a
19
response to the Findings and Recommendation as set forth in the Findings and
20
Recommendation.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: February 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger
23 emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28

U .S. D istrict C ourt

E. D . C alifornia 2