Opinion
Civil No. 00-598-JE.
June 22, 2004
OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment (#75). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2002, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation ("FR") in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus action. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying relief on the Petition because petitioner procedurally defaulted all of his claims. Petitioner was given until October 25, 2002 in which to file objections to the FR. When he failed to file any objections, the Court reviewed the legal principles de novo and adopted the Magistrate Judge's FR on November 15, 2002. Judgment was entered on January 31, 2003.
Petitioner claims he did, in fact, timely file objections to the FR by handing them to prison officials for mailing on October 21, 2002. He alleges that prison officials routinely mishandled other documents during the pendency of his case, and concludes they also mishandled the objections he attempted to file. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), he therefore moves the Court for reconsideration of its Order (#63) adopting the Magistrate Judge's FR.
Although petitioner characterizes his current Motion as seeking relief from the Court's Judgment, he is actually asking the Court to reconsider its November 15, 2002 Order (#63) adopting the Magistrate Judge's FR.
STANDARDS
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) allows a litigant to seek relief from an order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). A motion seeking reconsideration of an order "shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken." Id. "`[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A. Miller E. Cooper,Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478).DISCUSSION
Petitioner filed his first Motion for Relief from Judgment (#65) on January 13, 2004. The Court denied the Motion because petitioner failed to show a valid reason to justify reconsideration of the Order adopting the FR. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Relief from Order (#70) on March 24, 2004 which the Court denied as untimely.
Petitioner now files his third Motion for Relief from Judgment (#75) which, at first glance, also appears to be untimely because the Order he seeks to challenge was filed more than one year prior to the time he first asked the court to reconsider its decision. However, petitioner now supports his most recent Motion with copies of several notarized documents which he claims to have timely handed to prison authorities, but which the Court never received.
Petitioner first alleges he prepared a Motion for Relief from Judgment on August 25, 2003, even though no such document was ever received by the Court. As petitioner points out, pursuant to the "prison mailbox rule," a prisoner's documents are deemed filed at the moment the prisoner delivers them to prison authorities for forwarding to a court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000). In Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the prison mailbox rule applies where, as here, a prisoner's document is handed over to prison officials for mailing but never reaches the courthouse. The Ninth Circuit concluded "[a] prisoner who delivers a document to prison authorities gets the benefit of the prison mailbox rule" regardless of whether the document is received by the court, so long as the inmate "diligently follows up once he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a reasonable period of time." Huizar, 273 F.3d at 1233.
From the exhibits to the current Motion for Relief from Judgment (#75), it appears petitioner handed over three documents to prison officials for mailing which the Court never received. First, he provides a notarized affidavit of mailing for an August 25, 2003 Motion for Relief from Judgment showing he mailed his "MOTION AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS TO VACATE WITH OBJECTIONS AND APPENDIX" to both the Court and opposing counsel on September 15, 2003. Petitioner's Exhibit E. The Court has no record of receiving such a document.
The second document petitioner now offers is an affidavit which was intended to support the September 15, 2002 Motion for Relief from Judgment. The supporting affidavit was notarized on August 18, 2003 and details petitioner's diligent attempts to access the Court immediately following the issuance of the Magistrate Judge's FR. Petitioner's Exhibit D.
Petitioner also alleges he delivered objections to the Magistrate Judge's FR to prison officials for mailing on October 21, 2002, four days prior to the deadline. This Court has no record that the objections were ever filed. However, as an exhibit to the recently filed Motion for Relief from Judgment (#75), petitioner includes a copy of his affidavit of mailing in which he attested that on October 21, 2002 he placed "PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION" in the Snake River Correctional Institution's mailing service. Petitioner's Exhibit A. The affidavit of mailing was notarized on the same day and indicates he mailed his objections to this courthouse as well as counsel for respondent.Id.
Petitioner has demonstrated his numerous attempts to access the Court both during the pendency of this action and after Judgment was entered. The current Motion for Relief from Judgment (#75) relates back to the date of the Motion for Relief from Judgment which, although mailed on September 15, 2003, was never received. Given the apparent diligence with which petitioner attempted to access the Court during the time immediately following the FR's filing, and because he benefits from the prison mailbox rule, the Court finds he attempted to seek reconsideration of the Court's November 15, 2002 Order in a timely fashion.
Because petitioner also presents credible evidence that he timely handed over notarized objections to prison officials for mailing, his objections to the FR are deemed timely filed under the prison mailbox rule. Accordingly, the Motion for Relief from Judgment (docket #75) is GRANTED and the Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation (#63) and Judgment (#64) are WITHDRAWN. The Court shall conduct a de novo review of the record underlying the Magistrate Judge's FR once it receives petitioner's objections.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment (#75) is GRANTED, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to REOPEN this action. The Order Adopting Findings and Recommendation (#63) and Judgment (#64) are WITHDRAWN.
Petitioner shall file a copy of his objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation on or before July 15, 2004. Respondent's response to petitioner's objections is due on or before July 29, 2004. The Court will take the objections Under Advisement on July 30, 2004.
IT IS SO ORDERED.