(HC) Meza v. Pfeiffer
Filing
55
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/23/2024 VACATING 52 Order, GRANTING 53 Motion for Extension of Time to file Objections, CONSTRUING 51 as Petitioner's Objections to the 51 Findings and Recommendations and DIRECTING Respondent to file any reply within 14 days from the date of entry of this order to Petitioner's Objections. (Kyono, V)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD MEZA,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:20-cv-2316-DAD-CSK (HC)
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden,
ORDER VACATING COURT’S PRIOR
ORDER, GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE OBJECTIONS, AND CONSTRUING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VACATE
JUDGMENT AS OBJECTIONS
Respondent.
(Doc. Nos. 53, 54)
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On September 5, 2024, the undersigned
18
adopted the August 13, 2024 findings and recommendations, noting that no objections had been
19
filed. (Doc. No. 52 at 1.) On September 9, 2024, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of
20
time to file objections. (Doc. No. 53.) The motion was accompanied by a proof of service
21
reflecting petitioner attesting to service of his motion on August 27, 2024. (Id. at 7.) Under the
22
mailbox rule, petitioner’s motion for an extension of time was mailed before the time for the
23
filing of objections had expired, and therefore was timely filed. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
24
275–76 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner filing is dated from the date that the prisoner
25
delivers it to prison authorities for mailing).
26
In the meantime, petitioner filed a second motion to vacate the judgment. (Doc. No. 54.)
27
Because petitioner timely sought leave to file objections, the court will vacate its September 5,
28
2024 order adopting the August 13, 2024 findings and recommendations, and finds that
1
petitioner’s subsequently filed motion to vacate the judgment is unnecessary. Instead, the court
2
will construe petitioner’s subsequent motion (Doc. No. 54) as his objections to the findings and
3
recommendations (Doc. No. 51). The Clerk of the Court will be directed to edit the docket entry
4
to reflect such construction, and respondent will be granted fourteen days from the date of entry
5
of this order to file any reply to petitioner’s objections.
6
Accordingly:
7
1.
The September 5, 2024 order (Doc. No. 52) is vacated;
8
2.
Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (Doc. No. 53) is
9
granted;
10
3.
Petitioner’s motion to vacate judgment (Doc. No. 54) is hereby construed as
11
petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 51), and the
12
Clerk of the Court is directed to edit the docket entry pursuant to this order; and
13
4.
any reply to petitioner’s objections.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respondent shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order to file
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 23, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?