Gonzales-Garcia v. USA
Filing
10
ORDER granting 9 Motion for Extension of Time Deadline. Movant has 30 days from the date of filing of this Order to file a secondamended motion in compliance with this Order. If Movant fails to file a second amended motion within 30 days, the Cle rk of Court must, without further notice, terminate Document 25 in CR 11-1302-PHX- GMS) and enter a judgment of dismissal of the civil action (CV 12-214-PHX-GMS (DKD)) opened in connection with the Motion for Time Reduction, without prejudice. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/3/12.(DMT)
1
WO
MDR
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
Oscar Antonio Gonzales-Garcia,
Defendant/Movant.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 12-214-PHX-GMS (DKD)
No. CR 11-1302-PHX-GMS
ORDER
15
On January 31, 2012, Movant Oscar Antonio Gonzales-Garcia, who is confined in the
16
Burnet County Jail in Burnet, Texas, file a pro se “Motion for Time Reduction by an Inmate
17
in Federal Custody.” In a January 31, 2012 Order, the Court advised Movant that the Court
18
could not construe his Motion for Time Reduction as a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
19
§ 3582(c), notified Movant that the Court intended to construe his Motion for Time
20
Reduction as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, warned Movant of the consequences
21
of such a recharacterization, and gave Movant 30 days to file either (a) a notice withdrawing
22
his Motion for Time Reduction, or (b) an amended “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
23
a Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255).”
24
25
Order, the Court denied the Amended Motion because it did not comply with Local Rule of
26
Civil Procedure 7.1(b)(1). The Court gave Movant 30 days to file a second amended motion
27
that cured the deficiency identified in the Order.
28
JDDL
On February 28, 2012, Movant filed an Amended § 2255 Motion. In a March 2, 2012
....
1
I.
Pending Motion
2
On April 2, 2012, Movant filed a Motion for Extension of 30 Days (Doc. 9). He seeks
3
a 30-day extension of time because he is waiting for his “final destination and the
4
Marshal[ will] not allow [him] to carry any paperwork with [him].” The Court, in its
5
discretion, will grant the Motion and will give Movant an additional 30 days to file his
6
second amended § 2255 motion.
7
II.
Warnings
8
A.
Address Changes
9
Movant must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule
10
83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Movant must not include a motion for other
11
relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this
12
§ 2255 action.
13
B.
Copies
14
Movant must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See
15
LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the filing being stricken
16
without further notice to Movant.
17
C.
Possible Dismissal
18
If Movant fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these
19
warnings, the Court may dismiss this § 2255 action without further notice. See Ferdik v.
20
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for
21
failure to comply with any order of the Court).
22
IT IS ORDERED:
23
(1)
Movant’s Motion for Extension of 30 Days (Doc. 9 in CV 12-214-PHX-GMS
24
25
amended motion in compliance with this Order.
26
....
27
....
28
JDDL
(DKD)) is granted. Movant has 30 days from the date of filing of this Order to file a second
....
-2-
1
(2)
If Movant fails to file a second amended motion within 30 days, the Clerk of
2
Court must, without further notice, terminate Document 25 in CR 11-1302-PHX-GMS) and
3
enter a judgment of dismissal of the civil action (CV 12-214-PHX-GMS (DKD)) opened in
4
connection with the Motion for Time Reduction, without prejudice.
5
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2012.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JDDL
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?