Medeiros v. Rackley

Filing 30

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 24 Request for Respondent to Return Extra Copies and Original Documents and Sworn Affidavits Received from Petitioner, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/31/17. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GAYLE MARIE MEDEIROS, 14 15 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR RESPONDENT TO RETURN EXTRA COPIES AND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND SWORN AFFIDAVITS RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER Petitioner, 12 13 Case No. 1:16-cv-01644-SAB-HC v. RON RACKLEY, Respondent. (ECF No. 24) 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On April 20, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant request for Respondent to return extra 20 copies and original documents and sworn affidavits received from Petitioner. (ECF No. 24). 21 Petitioner alleges that she inadvertently enclosed the originals and copies of sworn affidavits and 22 documents in an envelope addressed to Respondent. On May 8, 2017, counsel for Respondent 23 filed a declaration, indicating that Respondent never received any of the materials that Petitioner 24 asserts were sent, and thus, is unable to comply with Petitioner’s request to return the extra 25 copies and originals. (ECF No. 29). Petitioner has not filed a reply. 26 It is unclear what, if any, relief Petitioner is requesting from the Court. In light of 27 counsel’s declaration, it appears that Respondent did not receive the materials at issue and thus, 28 is unable to comply with Petitioner’s request. 1 Accordingly, to the extent that Petitioner is requesting Court action on this matter, 1 2 Petitioner’s request is DENIED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 31, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?