United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER RE SUMMARY DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S RULE 60(b) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT, ORDER OR PROCEEDING
JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.
On July 20, 2015, following the entry of judgment, and denial of a previous motion to reopen his case, Petitioner Arturo Acristian ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Relief from a Judgment, Order or Proceeding Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b). (ECF Docket No. ("dkt.") 43). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED.
On November 12, 2013, Petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"). (Dkt. 1). On April 18, 2014, Respondent filed its Answer and Return. (Dkt. 22). On June 2, 2014, Petitioner filed his Traverse. (Dkt. 27).
On September 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the Petition. (Dkt. 31). Petitioner failed to file objections, or request an extension of time to do so within the time permitted.
On October 22, 2014, the Court accepted the Report and Recommendation and issued Judgment that the Petition be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice. (Dkt. 32, 33). The Court also denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, and the case was closed. (Dkt. 34).
Thereafter, on November 17, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen his case, along with a request for an extension of time to file objections. (Dkt. 35). Petitioner stated he had just been placed in Administrative Segregation and needed additional time to file objections, because he did not have access to his legal documents. Id . On November 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Petitioner to state the nature of his objections no later than December 19, 2014. (Dkt. 36).
On December 17, 2014, Petitioner filed a letter with the Court which appeared to state partial objections, but which primarily sought further time to comply with the November 20, 2014 order, because Petitioner was still in Administrative Segregation. (Dkt. 40).
On January 8, 2015, the Court issued an order denying Petitioner's Motion to Reopen his case and request for an extension of time to file objections, because Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). (Dkt. 41). Finally, on January 9, 2015, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. However, because the Court had already denied leave to re-open and denied Petitioner's request for an extension of time, the Court rejected the Objections and the document was not filed. (Dkt. 42).
On July 20, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) requesting relief from the Judgment and the Court's January 16, 2015 Order rejecting Petitioner's Objections for filing. (Dkt. 43). Petitioner also appears to seek a certificate of appealability and a tolling of the time limits for appealing the Judgment. Id.
A. Petitioner Is Not Entitled To Relief Under ...