(HC) Meza v. Pfeiffer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02316
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD MEZA, No. 2:20-cv-2316 DAD CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On September 19, 2022, the petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was dismissed as time barred and judgment was 19 entered in favor of respondent. (ECF Nos. 38, 39.) On January 29, 2024, petitioner filed a 20 motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 (ECF 21 No. 40.) Petitioner seeks relief from the judgment based on, inter alia, evidence that petitioner 22 suffers from mental defects in addition to schizophrenia that rendered petitioner mentally 23 incompetent to meet the federal filing deadline, and that the inmate who previously prepared and 24 filed documents on petitioner’s behalf provided incorrect information to the court. Petitioner 25 acknowledges that Rule 60(b) motions must ordinarily be filed within one year from the entry of 26 judgment but argues that such deadline should not apply to a mentally incompetent party. (ECF 27 1 Petitioner signed the motion and accompanying declaration, but it appears the documents were 28 prepared by petitioner’s new legal assistant, inmate James W. Brammer. 1 |} No. 40 at 30.) See e.g., Milam v. Harrington, 2018 WL 1155969 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018) (despite 2 || judgment dismissing untimely habeas case years prior, court granted relief under Rule 60(b) 3 || where petitioner submitted new evidence of Milam’s “documented mental health and intellectual 4 | problems,” as well as attorney abandonment.), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 5 || 1135451 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018). 6 Good cause appearing, respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s motion to 7 || vacate the judgment. Respondent shall address both the timeliness and substance of the motion. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED within thirty days from the date of this order, 9 || respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 40), as set forth above, and 10 || petitioner may file a reply within fourteen days thereafter. 1] 12 || Dated: April 19, 2024 “7 2 L W. Spo ILE 13 (Aw We 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 || /1/meza2316.60b. □□ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28