Wells v. Lizarraga

Filing 47

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/26/2022 RECOMMENDING that the 43 Motion to Correct the filing date be granted. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Spichka, K.)

Case 2:16-cv-02807-WBS-AC Document 47 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER KELLY WELLS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2807 WBS AC P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion requesting that the court

18

correct the filing date of his notice of appeal or grant relief from potential default. ECF No. 43.

19
20

I.

Procedural History
The habeas petition was denied and judgment was entered in this case on April 22, 2022.

21

ECF Nos. 37, 38. On July 19, 2022, the court received petitioner’s application for a certificate of

22

appealability, which was dated July 9, 2022, and was construed as a notice of appeal. ECF No.

23

39. Petitioner then filed a motion requesting that the court find his notice of appeal was timely.

24

ECF No. 43. The motion avers that petitioner followed proper prison legal mail procedures and

25

submitted a notice of appeal for mailing on either May 12 or 13, 2022. ECF No. 43 at 2, 4.

26

Attached as an exhibit to the motion is a document petitioner identifies as his copy of the notice

27

of appeal that differs from the application for a certificate of appealability. Id. at 5. Because it

28

appeared that the court did not receive petitioner’s notice of appeal, respondent was directed to
1

Case 2:16-cv-02807-WBS-AC Document 47 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 4
1

respond to the motion and to petitioner’s claim that he timely submitted a notice of appeal. ECF

2

No. 44. Respondent has now opposed the motion (ECF No 45) and petitioner has filed a reply

3

(ECF No. 46).

4

II.

5

The Parties’ Positions
Petitioner states under penalty of perjury that on May 12 or 13, 2022, he handed his notice

6

of appeal—which was in an envelope marked as legal mail—to the correctional officer working

7

his housing block and watched the officer sign the seal on the envelope. ECF No. 43 at 2, 4. The

8

envelope was then returned to petitioner, who placed it in the community mailbox. Id. Petitioner

9

states that he is not permitted to watch the legal mail being logged into the legal mail logbook

10

because the mailbox is emptied at midnight and he believes that it is then sorted by the tower

11

officer who is responsible for logging any legal mail, though he cannot swear to that process. Id.

12

He speculates that he may be the victim of retaliation by an unknown officer. Id. at 4. Petitioner

13

also provides the declaration of another inmate who states that he typed petitioner’s notice of

14

appeal on May 10, 2022; that the copy attached to the motion is an accurate copy of the notice of

15

appeal; and that on or about May 13, 2022, petitioner advised him that he had put the notice of

16

appeal in the mailbox. Id. at 6.

17

Respondent opposes the motion on the grounds that petitioner has not produced a

18

photocopy of the notice of appeal, and the motion is supported solely by hearsay and petitioner’s

19

speculation that the document was targeted for retaliation. ECF No. 45. He further argues that

20

petitioner did not submit anything for mailing from April 22, 2022, through May 2022, and

21

provides a log of petitioner’s mailings. Id. at 3-4.

22
23

III.

Discussion
Petitioner has presented evidence in the form of his sworn statement that he followed the

24

procedure for sending legal mail by having an officer sign off on it prior to depositing it in the

25

mailbox and that he has no ability to ensure his legal mail is entered into the logbook. This

26

portion of the declaration is clearly based upon petitioner’s personal knowledge. Moreover,

27

though petitioner may not have sufficient personal knowledge to testify as to how the mail is

28

processed after it is placed in the mailbox, he does have sufficient personal knowledge to testify
2

Case 2:16-cv-02807-WBS-AC Document 47 Filed 09/26/22 Page 3 of 4
1

that whatever the process may be, it does not allow for him to verify that his mail has been

2

properly logged.

3

Respondent has provided no evidence that would contradict petitioner’s description of the

4

legal mail process. In light of petitioner’s representation that the mail is logged after it is

5

collected from the mailbox, the fact that there is no entry in the mail log1 is not conclusive

6

evidence that petitioner did not submit a notice of appeal on May 12 or 13, 2022, particularly

7

since respondent offers no information on the process for how legal mail is processed and logged.

8

Furthermore, while petitioner speculates that his mail was tampered with, it is equally plausible

9

that after being removed from the mailbox the envelope was misplaced or mistakenly sorted into

10

the non-legal mail and later lost by the postal service. Finally, though petitioner has not produced

11

a photocopy of the notice of appeal, the court notes that he has provided a declaration of the

12

individual who typed the original notice of appeal and who avers that the copy provided is an

13

accurate copy of the original.2 ECF No. 43 at 6.

14

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c) provides that a prisoner’s notice of appeal “is

15

timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for

16

filing.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). In order to benefit from this rule, a prisoner must utilize the

17

system designed for legal mail if one exists at the institution where he is confined. Id. Petitioner

18

has declared under penalty of perjury that he submitted his notice of appeal on either May 12 or

19

13, 2022, and that he did so in accordance with his institution’s procedure for sending legal mail.

20

Absent evidence from respondent that contradicts petitioner’s sworn testimony, petitioner’s

21

motion should be granted and his notice of appeal should be deemed timely filed.

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion to correct the

23

filing date of his notice of appeal (ECF No. 43) be GRANTED and the notice of appeal be

24

deemed timely filed.

25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that the mail log respondent relies upon to rebut the motion is not accompanied
by a declaration from a custodian of record.
2
The copy of the notice of appeal includes a typewritten date of May 10, 2022, as well as a
handwritten date of August 1, 2022. ECF No. 43 at 5. It appears that plaintiff signed and dated
the copy at the same time he signed and dated his motion. See id. at 2, 4, 7.
3

Case 2:16-cv-02807-WBS-AC Document 47 Filed 09/26/22 Page 4 of 4
1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

6

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

7

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

8

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

DATED: September 26, 2022

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4