The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matters before the Court are two motions filed by Petitioner pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. # 45, 47).
On June 27, 2007, Petitioner Charles Twain Clemans, Jr., a state prisoner then-represented by counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. # 1, 2). The Petition contained three grounds on which Petitioner claimed habeas relief: (1) "Petitioner has a state-created liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in retaining his already earned conduct credits"; (2) "Petitioner is also entitled to his earned credits under government estoppel or equitable estoppel principles"; and (3) "Petitioner has a state-created liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment in being released on parole as 'part of' his sentence." (Doc. # 1 at 6-8).
On September 30, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition, on grounds that each of Petitioner's claims for relief were time-barred, that claim two failed to state a federal claim, and that claim three was not ripe for review. (Doc. # 6).
On April 4, 2008 the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Respondent's motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 24). The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court: (1) dismiss claim one of the Petition without prejudice, to allow Petitioner to properly exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking federal habeas review; (2) dismiss claim two with prejudice for failure to state a federal claim; and (3) dismiss claim three with prejudice based on Petitioner's failure to comply with the one year statute of limitations in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA").
On April 21, 2008, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 28). Petitioner asserted that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and that each of his claims for habeas relief alleged a federal question. In support of his assertion that he had exhausted his administrative remedies, Petitioner submitted an opinion of the California Court of Appeal denying Petitioner's first claim for habeas relief on the merits. (Doc. # 36-1 at 140-42).
In light of the supplemental materials submitted by Petitioner with his objections, this Court did not adopt the portion of the Report and Recommendation which concluded that Petitioner had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Upon a de novo review of Petitioner's first claim, this Court concluded that federal habeas relief was not available pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) because the judgment of the California Court of Appeal was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. This Court denied Petitioner's first claim for relief with prejudice.
This Court adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed claim two of the Petition for failure to state a federal claim.
With respect to claim three of the Petition, this Court found that "the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claim for adjustment of his parole status as Petitioner failed to bring the claim within the AEDPA's one-year limitations period." (Doc. # 37 at 7). This Court adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed claim three of the Petition with prejudice.
On August 13, 2008, Petitioner filed a "notice of appeal and notice that no certificate of appealability is required." (Doc. # 40).
On September 8, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration relating to his third ground for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Doc. # 47).
On September 22, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) requesting permission for consideration of an Equal Protection claim. (Doc. # 45).
On January 22, 2009, this Court issued an order denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motions on the ground that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 60(b) ...