1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO LOPEZ GALINDO, No. 2:23-cv-00572-TLN-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Pedro Lopez Galindo’s (“Petitioner”) 18 Motion for Relief from Judgment.1 (ECF No. 14.) Respondent Warden (“Respondent”) did not 19 file an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 As discussed below, the Court construes Petitioner’s objections as a motion for relief from 28 judgment. 1 A detailed recitation of the factual and procedural history is not necessary for the 2 disposition of Petitioner’s motion. As relevant here, Petitioner is a federal prisoner who filed a 3 petition for a writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to

, requesting the 4 Court order the Federal Bureau of Prisons to apply earned federal time credits under the First Step 5 Act and calculate his release date. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition for, 6 among other things, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of statutory authority to grant the 7 relief requested. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner did not file an opposition or statement of non- 8 opposition, and on August 8, 2023, the magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to show cause 9 (“OSC”) within twenty-one (21) days as to why the Court should not dismiss the Petition for 10 failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 10.) Petitioner failed to file a response to the OSC. 11 On October 4, 2023, the magistrate judge made findings and recommended the Court: (1) 12 dismiss the Petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court 13 orders; and (2) order the Clerk of Court to close the case (“F&Rs”). (Id.) That same day, the 14 F&Rs were served on Petitioner via U.S. mail, and Petitioner had fourteen (14) days therefrom to 15 object to the F&Rs. (Id.) Petitioner did not file any objections within the fourteen-day window. 16 (Id.) 17 On November 2, 2023, the Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s F&Rs and 18 dismissed the Petition without prejudice.2 (ECF No. 12.) The Court declined to issue a certificate 19 of appealability under

and ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. (Id.) 20 The Clerk of Court entered Judgment that same day. (ECF No. 13.) 21 On November 6, 2023, Petitioner filed “objections” to the F&Rs, seeking an Order from 22 the Court mandating the Federal Bureau of Prisons credit him with 365 days under the First Step 23 Act or, in the alternative, ordering Respondent to show cause why such relief should not be 24 granted. (ECF No. 14.) As discussed above, Petitioner’s objections to the F&Rs were due 25 fourteen (14) days after service. Petitioner filed objections more than fourteen days after service 26

27 2 The Court notes its prior Order inadvertently dismissed the Petition without prejudice, rather than with prejudice. (ECF No. 12.) The Court hereby CORRECTS its Order (ECF No. 12) 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 1 and after the clerk entered Judgment in this case. Thus, Petitioner’s objections are untimely and 2 improper. Nevertheless, the Court construes Petitioner’s objections as a motion for relief from 3 judgment. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

(9th Cir. 2010) (court must construe pro se 4 plaintiff’s pleadings liberally); Fair v. Atchley, No. 2:20-CV-01107-TLN-DB,

, 5 at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 16, 2024) (construing untimely objections to F&Rs as a motion for relief 6 from judgment). 7 On November 20, 2023 — two weeks after Petitioner filed the instant motion — 8 Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. (ECF No. 15.) Before turning to the merits of Petitioner’s 9 motion for relief from judgment, the Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed 10 in light of Petitioner’s appeal. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006) (courts have an 11 independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the 12 absence of a challenge from any party). 13 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers 14 jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects 15 of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,

, 58 16 (1982). “This rule is judge-made; its purpose is to promote judicial economy and avoid the 17 confusion that would ensue from having the same issues before two courts simultaneously.” Nat. 18 Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2001). 19 In the instant case, Petitioner appeals the Court’s Order and Judgment dismissing his 20 Petition. (ECF No. 15.) Petitioner’s pending motion for relief from judgment, by its very nature, 21 also seeks relief from the Court’s Order and Judgment dismissing his Petition. Because 22 Petitioner’s motion involves matters that are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit, the Court 23 finds it does not have jurisdiction. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 2 | 14) for lack of jurisdiction and CORRECTS its prior Order (ECF No. 12) to dismiss the Petition 3 | with prejudice. No further motions will be considered in this Court related to the Petition unless 4 | and until the Ninth Circuit renders its decision. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Date: August 5, 2024 7 / g “ I of Lor ° Troy L. Nuhley> ] 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28