Hardy v. Haynes

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 29, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05898
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 RICHARD JACK HARDY, CASE NO. C20-5898-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 RON HAYNES, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Richard Jack Hardy’s motion for an 16 extension of time (Dkt. No. 12) to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17 9). Having thoroughly considered the motion and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS 18 in part the motion for the reasons explained herein. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Mr. Hardy filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition seeking relief from his state court 21 convictions. (Dkt. No. 3.) In December 2020, Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura 22 recommended the Court deny the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 23 granted. (Dkt. No. 9.) Mr. Hardy did not file objections, and the Court adopted the R&R, denied 24 the habeas petition, and entered judgment on January 14, 2021. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11.) 25 Mr. Hardy now moves for a 90-day extension of time to file his objections. (Dkt. No. 12.) 26 He explains that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns have been in place since early 1 December 2020 at Stafford Creek Corrections Center where he is incarcerated. (Id. at 1.) The 2 Stafford Creek Law Library has been closed, and Mr. Hardy has been moved around the facility 3 without access to his legal materials because he contracted COVID-19 and got very sick. (Id. at 4 1–2.) Without access to the Law Library or legal materials, he has been unable to prepare or file 5 objections. (Id.) 6 I. DISCUSSION 7 Because Mr. Hardy’s motion was filed after the Court denied his petition and entered 8 judgment, the Court liberally construes the motion as a motion for relief from judgment under 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 745–46 (9th 10 Cir.2008) (“Nomenclature is not important. The label or description that a party puts on its 11 motion does not control whether the party should be granted or denied relief.”); Borallo v. Reyes, 12 763 F.2d 1098, 1101 (“Since ‘nomenclature is not controlling,’ a court must construe whether a 13 motion, however styled, is appropriate for the relief requested.”) (citation omitted). 14 Rule 60(b) provides for relief from judgment upon a showing of (1) mistake, 15 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due 16 diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3) fraud by the adverse 17 party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason 18 justifying relief. “To receive relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate ‘extraordinary 19 circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to prosecute his case.’” Lal v. California, 20 610 F.3d 518, 524 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 21 (9th Cir. 2002)). 22 Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that Mr. Hardy is entitled to relief under 23 Rule 60(b)(6). Mr. Hardy has demonstrated that he was unable to file objections to the Report 24 and Recommendation due to extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. Accordingly, the 25 Court GRANTS in part Mr. Hardy’s motion (Dkt. No. 12). Specifically, the Court will vacate its 26 prior order and judgment denying Mr. Hardy’s habeas petition (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11) and give Mr. 1 Hardy an opportunity to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. However, the Court 2 cannot find on this record that 90 days to file objections is warranted. The Court will give Mr. 3 Hardy 60 days from the date of this order to file objections. 4 II. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Hardy’s motion (Dkt. No. 12); 6 VACATES the Court’s prior order and judgment denying the petition (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11); and 7 DIRECTS the Clerk to reopen this case. Mr. Hardy must file his objections to the Report and 8 Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) on or before May 28, 2021. If the Stafford Creek Law 9 Library does not open by April 30, 2021, Mr. Hardy may file another motion for an 10 extension of time to file his objections. 11 DATED this 29th day of March 2021. A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26