Olivo v. Reece et al
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 04/02/09 ordering that respondent must within 20 days file their response to petitioner's contentions within his reconsideration requests 20 through 22 ; thereafter, petitioner will have twenty days to file a reply. (Plummer, M)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This case was transferred from the Southern District of Mississippi, Western Division, by. See, Order, filed in this court on November 15, 2007 (docket # 7).
2 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AUGUSTINE OLIVO, Petitioner, vs. CONSTANCE REESE, Warden, et al., Respondents. / Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, regarding the execution of his sentence.1 Petitioner challenged the Bureau of Prison's refusal to "consider inmates for immediate placement into RCC2 pursuant to the factors listed under 18 U.S.C. 3621(b)...." Petition, p. 2. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as premature was unopposed and was granted, and judgment thereon entered, on September 16, 2008.3 In the Order dismissing the case, the district judge ORDER No. CIV S-07-2452 WBS GGH P
Residential Re-entry Center.
Petitioner failed to oppose respondent's motion and an order was filed on March 28, 2008, directing petitioner to show cause why the motion should not be granted; thereafter, on May 2, 2008, petitioner was granted an extension of time to show cause for his failure to oppose 1
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
stated: Because Olivo raises the same arguments that have been raised in Rodriguez v. Smith, 2007 WL 1521045 (E.D. Cal 2007), presently pending on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and as explained in respondents' motion, if respondents prevail Olivo's petition will be meritless, but if respondents do not prevail, they will honor the Ninth Circuit's decision and Olivo's petition will not be necessary. Order, filed on September 16, 2008, pp. 1-2. Subsequently, petitioner has requested reconsideration of the dismissal based on his contention that the Ninth Circuit had published its decision in Rodriguez prior to the issuance of the order dismissing the instant case. This matter has been referred to the undersigned "for further findings and recommendations in light of plaintiff's representation that the Court of Appeals' opinion in Rodriguez v. Smith, No. 07-16014, was filed prior to this court's order of September 15, 2008."4 Order, filed on January 30, 2008. This court now takes judicial notice5 of the fact that the decision in Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2008),6 was filed on September 4, 2008, a few days prior to the issuance of the order dismissing this case. In light of this fact and the reference by the district judge, it appears that the requests to reconsider the dismissal of this case have been granted. In Rodriguez, the court concluded that BOP regulations were in "conflict with the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) as to when an inmate may be considered for initial placement in or transfer to an RCC." 541 F.3d at 1189. The court will now direct respondent to provide a response to the motion and to file his response to the motion. Because petitioner failed to file any further response, this court recommended that respondent's motion be granted. See Findings and Recommendations, filed on July 31, 2008.
4
The order at issue was signed on September 15, 2008, but not filed until September 16,
2008. A court may take judicial notice of court records. See Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994); MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
6 5
Appellate Court Case No. 07-16014. 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
petitioner's contention that his petition should proceed because the respondents have failed to honor the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriquez. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent must, within twenty days, file their response to petitioner's contentions within his reconsideration requests (docket nos. 20 through 22); thereafter, petitioner will have twenty days to file a reply. DATED: April 2, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH:009 oliv2452.rcn
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
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?