Baltazar v. Brazelton

Filing 44

CORRECTIVE ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Supplement the Record, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/21/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
SURGIO VALENCIA BALTAZAR,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01538-BAM HC

10
Petitioner,
11
v.

CORRECTIVE ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD

12
KELLY SANTORO, Warden,
13
Respondent.

(Docs. 41 & 43)

14
15
On December 21, 2015, the Court entered an order erroneously captioned “Order Granting

16

17 Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to Supplement the Record.” Doc. 43. The order actually
18
19

granted Petitioner’s motion for enlargement of time. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES
Document 43, and issues the following corrective order,

20
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

21
22

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 On April 14, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss contending that

23 Petitioner’s claims two through six were time-barred. Petitioner opposed the motion, contending that
24 Respondent failed to consider an additional habeas petition filed in the Merced County Superior Court
25 on or about October 28, 2013. Thereafter, the parties have disputed whether Petitioner actually filed the
26

petition in October 2013. On October 22, 2015, this Court entered an order permitting Petitioner to

27
1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge

28 to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.
1
29
30

1
2
3

supplement the record within thirty days by providing documentation of his filing a petition in Merced
County Superior Court in October 2013.
Petitioner’s response was misdirected and erroneously filed as a new petition (No. 1:15-cv-

4 01687-JLT HC) on November 5, 2015. On December 17, 2015, Petitioner filed a statement authorizing
5 the Court to close the erroneously opened case. He simultaneously filed a motion in the above6

captioned case for thirty additional days to secure documentation from the prison mail logs confirming

7
that the state petition was sent to the Merced County Superior Court in October 2013.
8
9

Resolution of the disputed state filing is in the interest of justice and constitutes good cause for

10 an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the time for Petitioner to supplement
11 the record to document his filing a state habeas petition in the Merced County Superior Court in or about
12 October 2013 be extended for thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 21, 2015

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17

29

A. McAuliffe

2