(HC) Steppe v. Attorney General for the State of California, No. 2:2008cv03020 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/14/09 RECOMMENDING that 9 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION be denied. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 20 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Steppe v. Attorney General for the State of California Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BERNARD STEPPE, 11 12 13 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-3020 JAM GGH P vs. JERRY BROWN, Attorney General, 14 Respondent. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 On February 17, 2009, judgment was entered in this case pursuant to an Order, 17 filed on the same day, summarily dismissing this case. The Order of dismissal adopted the 18 Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 18, 2008, wherein petitioner, an apparent 19 pretrial detainee housed in San Bernardino County purported to bring a petition for writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which he characterized as a “pretrial writ.”1 The 21 undersigned interpreted the incoherent filing as being made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 22 found that petitioner had failed to exhaust state court remedies on his claim of being subject to 23 double jeopardy at state trial; in the alternative, the court found that because petitioner appeared 24 25 1 26 Petitioner neither filed an in forma pauperis affidavit nor paid the required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 to be challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings, his claim was barred by the Younger2 2 abstention doctrine, under which, based on principles of comity and federalism, a federal court 3 should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory 4 relief absent extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the undersigned noted that petitioner had 5 failed to bring this action within the appropriate district, given his detention in San Bernardino 6 County, a location within the jurisdiction of the Central District of California. 7 Following entry of judgment, petitioner filed a document entitled “motion to 8 rehear or reconsider,” which the court will construe as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 9 Under Rule 60(b), a party may seek relief from judgment and to re-open his case in limited 10 circumstances, “including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 11 545 U.S. 524, 528, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2645-46 (2005). Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part: 12 17 On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud ..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 18 The court has reviewed petitioner’s motion and finds that petitioner has added 13 14 15 16 19 nothing new or substantive that was not previously before it, nor does he demonstrate a sufficient 20 basis for the court to find that the judgment was mistaken. Instead, petitioner emphasizes this 21 court’s lack of jurisdiction over his mis-filed case and seeks to have this matter re-opened and 22 transferred to the appropriate district.3 As noted above, the undersigned, in recommending 23 24 2 25 3 26 See, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Alternatively, petitioner asks the court to construe the request as a notice of appeal. If these findings and recommendations are adopted, petitioner is not precluded from filing a notice of appeal at that time. 2 1 dismissal, pointed out that the appropriate jurisdiction for petitioner’s application was the Central 2 District of California. Because, however, the filing was on its face patently defective, the court 3 in an effort to promote judicial efficiency and economy, dismissed, rather than transferred, this 4 putative petition. Nothing petitioner has submitted in his motion undermines the appropriateness 5 of that conclusion, offers any new evidence or substantive basis for re-opening this case, or 6 presents any argument or reasoning the court had not previously considered. 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s March 9, 2009 (docket # 9), “motion to ... reconsider,” construed as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), be denied. 9 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 10 District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 11 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file 12 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings 13 and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 15 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: October 14, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 GGH:009 19 step3020.fr 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
