Foley v. Biter, No. 12-17724 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first degree murder and related charges, appealed the district court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). Petitioner properly filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court in 2001; the district court denied the petition in 2004; and petitioner's counsel, forgetting that he represented petitioner, did not inform petitioner of the denial. Petitioner discovered that his petition was denied six years later when he sent a letter inquiring about his status. The court concluded that the district court erred by finding that petitioner was not abandoned by his attorney; counsel's failure to communicate with petitioner, to preserve petitioner's ability to appeal, and to withdraw from the case clearly constituted abandonment; the district court abused its discretion to the extent the district court relied on lack of diligence or failure to file within a reasonable time to deny the motion for relief; and petitioner's motion for relief was timely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s order denying Mark Foley’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from the 2004 denial of his habeas corpus petition in a case in which Foley’s counsel never informed Foley that the court denied his petition and Foley only discovered that his petition was denied six years later when he sent a letter to the court inquiring about its status. The panel held (1) that the district court erred by finding that Foley was not abandoned by his attorney, (2) that the abandonment directly prevented Foley from timely appealing the denial of his habeas petition, and (3) that the motion for relief was timely because once Foley learned his petition had been denied, he made reasonable efforts to determine whether relief was available and how to seek such relief. The panel remanded for further proceedings.
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.