Arellano v. Paramo

Filing 83

ORDER: Petitioner's Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration (ECF No. 82 ) is Denied. The Motion to Amend Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 80 ) is Granted. The Court certifies the following issues for appeal: Grounds 1-2 , as described in ECF No. 80 . The Clerk of Court shall issue an Amended Judgment certifying Grounds 1-2, as described in ECF No. 80 for appeal. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/26/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RAUL ARELLANO,

Case No.: 17-cv-0354-WQH-MDD
Petitioner,

11
12
13

ORDER

v.
DANIEL PARAMO,
Respondent.

14
15

HAYES, Judge:

16

The matters before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petitioner’s Motion

17

for Reconsideration (ECF No. 80), and Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and

18

Reconsideration (ECF No. 82).

19

I.

20

On August 24, 2018, Petitioner Arellano filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

21
22
23

Background

Court’s Order dismissing the First Amended Petition. (ECF No. 75).
On August 28, 2018, this Court denied Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and
granted petitioner a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 77).

24

On August 28, 2018, after this Court issued its Amended Order (ECF No. 77), the

25

Court received in the mail and docketed a motion from Petitioner, dated August 22, 2018.

26

(ECF No. 80). The Court construes ECF No. 80 as a Motion to Amend Petitioner’s Motion

27

for Reconsideration, ECF No. 75. Specifically, Petitioner moves to substitute “Grounds 1-

28

7” from ECF No. 80 in place of “Grounds 1-7” in ECF No. 75.
1
17-cv-0354-WQH-MDD

1

On August 29, 2018, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment. (ECF No. 78).

2

On September 12, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification and

3

Reconsideration. (ECF No. 82).
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 80); Motion for Clarification and
Reconsideration (ECF No. 82)
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petitioner’s Motion for

4

II.

5
6
7
8
9

Reconsideration (ECF No. 80),1 and grants the relief requested therein. The Court has
reviewed Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration (ECF No. 82) and it is
denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and

10
11

Reconsideration (ECF No. 82) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend Petitioner’s Motion for

12
13
14
15

Reconsideration (ECF No. 80) is granted. The Court certifies the following issues for
appeal: Grounds 1-2, as described in ECF No. 80. The Clerk of Court shall issue an
Amended Judgment certifying Grounds 1-2, as described in ECF No. 80 for appeal.

16
Dated: October 26, 2018

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

In determining the timeliness of Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 80), the Court applies the
prisoner “mailbox rule” and finds that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 80) was timely filed on
August 22, 2018. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (prisoner’s legal document is
considered filed at the time it is given to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk).
1

27
28

2
17-cv-0354-WQH-MDD