Goods v. McCumber, et al.

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/5/15 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed on December 9, 2014 8 are vacated; and Defendants are directed to file and serve one or more declarations addressing (i) whether defendant was provided with sufficient copies of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to make a timely and complete submission with the California Supreme Court, as ordered by the court on November 14, 2014, and if he was not so provided, (ii ) the reasons for the omission, and (iii) what steps defendants are taking to ensure that plaintiff can make a proper filing with the California Supreme Court, particularly in light of the fact that it appears plaintiff has missed his filing deadline. These declarations must be filed with the court and served on defendant no later than January 12, 2015, at 4:30 p.m.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY GOODS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-02580 TLN KJN P

v.

ORDER

JEFFERY McCUMBER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. He seeks relief pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983, and has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the court

19

because, based on plaintiff’s recent filings, it appears that defendants may not have complied with

20

the court’s prior orders herein.
On November 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging civil rights violations by prison

21
22

officials. (ECF No. 1.) According to the complaint, plaintiff’s deadline for submitting a habeas

23

corpus petition to the California Supreme Court was November 25, 2014. He alleges therein that

24

prison officials repeatedly refused to allow him to make copies longer than 50 pages, and also

25

refused to let him to copy his petition in piecemeal increments. As a result, plaintiff claimed an

26

inability to make sufficient copies of his petition for timely filing with the state Supreme Court.

27

The complaint sought injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages.

28

////
1

1

Together with his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that

2

would prevent the defendants “from denying plaintiff copying of Habeas Corpus writ of criminal

3

conviction to further his legal proceedings.” (ECF No. 3 at 2.) According to the moving papers,

4

plaintiff’s petition consisted of 169 pages of written documents and 200 pages of exhibits. (Id.)

5

In a supporting declaration, plaintiff asserted that he provided staff with a written explanation of

6

the need to make copies greater than 50 pages in length, to no avail. (ECF No. 3 at 6.)

7

On November 6, 2014, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations

8

recommending, in pertinent part, that defendants be ordered to provide plaintiff with sufficient

9

copies of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to make a timely and complete submission with

10

the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 5.) On November 14, 2014, these findings and

11

recommendations were adopted in full by the Hon. Troy L. Nunley. (ECF No. 6.) That same

12

day, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica N. Anderson filed a statement with the court

13

providing that “the Defendants made two copies of the Plaintiff’s petition and accompanying

14

exhibits,” and furnished him with these copies on November 10, 2014. (ECF No. 7.)

15

On December 9, 2014, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations

16

recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice, on the grounds that it appeared

17

(i) based on the filing of Supervising Deputy Attorney General Anderson, that plaintiff had been

18

provided with copies necessary to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California

19

Supreme Court, rendering his claim for injunctive relief moot, and (ii) that plaintiff’s claim for

20

monetary damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (ECF No. 8.)

21

Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file and serve written objections to the findings and

22

recommendations.

23

On December 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a document, entitled “Notice of Noncompliance by

24

CDCR with regard to Injunction of Copy Issue of Legal papers.” (ECF No. 9.) In it, plaintiff

25

states that he was “not given . . . required copies for the Cal. State Supreme Court . . . .” (Id. at

26

1.) Plaintiff also attached a copy of a document, entitled “Operations Manual,” which appears to

27

show that an original and 14 copies of a petition for writ of habeas corpus are required for filing

28

with the California Supreme Court. (Id. at 2.)
2

1

On December 22, 1014, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations

2

reiterating his contention that he was not provided sufficient copies to file a petition for writ of

3

habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 10.)

4

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed on December 9, 2014 (ECF No. 8) are

6
7

vacated; and
2. Defendants are directed to file and serve one or more declarations addressing

8

(i) whether defendant was provided with sufficient copies of his petition for a writ of

9

habeas corpus to make a timely and complete submission with the California Supreme

10

Court, as ordered by the court on November 14, 2014, and if he was not so provided,

11

(ii) the reasons for the omission, and (iii) what steps defendants are taking to ensure

12

that plaintiff can make a proper filing with the California Supreme Court, particularly

13

in light of the fact that it appears plaintiff has missed his filing deadline. These

14

declarations must be filed with the court and served on defendant no later than January

15

12, 2015, at 4:30 p.m.

16

Dated: January 5, 2015

17
18

/good2580.vac.fr

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3