(HC) Russ v. Price ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROY RUSS, No. 18-cv-1154-AWI-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT GRANT PETITIONER 13 v. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND VACATE ORDER DISMISSING CASE 14 BRANDON PRICE, ECF Nos. 7, 9, 10 15 Respondent. OBJECTIONS DUE IN 14 DAYS 16 17 Petitioner Roy Russ, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital, sought a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We recommended that the court dismiss the petition at 19 screening without prejudice, see ECF No. 7 at 2, and the court summarily adopted our 20 recommendation and entered judgment against petitioner, ECF Nos. 9, 10. Petitioner has not 21 appealed. We nonetheless recommend that the court grant petitioner relief from judgment and 22 vacate the order dismissing the petition. If the court adopts these recommendations, we will 23 screen the petition again. 24 A federal district court may apply Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 25 habeas proceedings. See Ybarra v. Filson, 869 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2017). Under Rule 26 60(b), the court may grant relief from judgment. See Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 27 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004); San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth. v. U.S. Dep't of 28 Interior, 624 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1208 (E.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d sub nom. San Luis & Delta-Mendota 1 Water Auth. v. United States, 672 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2012). We believe that is the appropriate 2 course of action here. 3 Petitioner’s original filing ran 237 pages in length. At the outset of his petition, Russ 4 presented his claim that state courts erroneously dismissed his state habeas petition based on 5 clerical errors such as incorrect case numbers. See ECF No. 1 at 2-5. Petitioner’s lead arguments 6 did not raise issues of federal law, and we recommended dismissal on the ground that he raised no 7 federal claims. We have, however, re-reviewed the petition, and have identified certain federal 8 claims within it. Specifically, between pages 62 and 73, petitioner raised two federal due process 9 claims. See ECF No. 1 at 62-73. Although this court may ultimately dismiss those claims after a 10 second round of screening, petitioner is entitled to have his federal claims considered by the 11 court. 12 Findings and Recommendations 13 We recommend that the court grant petitioner relief from the judgment dated August 1, 14 2019, ECF No. 10. We also recommend that the court vacate the order dated August 1, 2019, 15 ECF No. 9, and the judgment dated August 1, 2019, ECF No. 10. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 17 presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 18 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the 19 service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings 20 and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 21 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District 22 Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° zg : —N prssann — Dated: _ August 6, 2019 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 No. 202 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28