UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 26, 2013
HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 44)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF (DOC. 28)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DOCS. 27, 31, 43)
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 through 304. On March 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") to deny Petitioner's motion for relief as premature, and to deny Petitioner's motions for injunctive relief. The findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties on the same date, informed the parties that objections could be filed within thirty (30) days after service, and that replies to any objections should be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of any objections.
On April 1, 2013, Petitioner filed timely objections to the F&R in which he objected and further sought the District Judge to reconsider the Magistrate Judge's F&R pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). *fn1 The objections are limited to the F&R's discussion of Petitioner's motion for relief (Doc. No. 28). By in large, the objections simply restate the text of, and the Adversary Committee's comments to, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).
No reply to Petitioner's objections has been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. It appears that Petitioner is attempting to apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to matters that did not occur in this Court. Matters that occurred in prison hearings are not the proper basis for a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Ra Chaka v. Givens, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12272, *46-*47 & n.17 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 1995). Petitioner has pointed to no orders in this Court to which Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) would apply.
Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, and the Court finds that the F&R is supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) The Findings and Recommendations filed on March 13, 2013, are ADOPTED in full; and
2) Petitioner's motion for relief is DENIED; and
3) Petitioner's motions for injunctive relief are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE