Munoz v. Smith et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion to reinstate criminal appeal. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/21/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

PETER J. MUNOZ, JR.,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

GREGORY SMITH, et al.,

13

Case No. 3:11-CV-00197-LRH-(RAM)

Respondents.

ORDER

14
15

The court dismissed this action because it was untimely. Order (#11). Petitioner has

16

submitted a motion to reinstate criminal appeal (#13), which the court construes as a motion

17

pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Most of the motion is an attempt to

18

relitigate the issue of timeliness, and those arguments are better raised on appeal. The court noted

19

that when petitioner was informed on September 9, 2010, of the decision of the Nevada Supreme

20

Court affirming the denial of his state habeas corpus petition, he still had 74 days left to file a timely

21

federal habeas corpus petition, but that he waited 6 months to file that petition. Order, p. 2 (#11).

22

Petitioner now notes for the first time in any document that he did not receive a letter from his

23

attorney, informing him of the conclusion of representation, and a copy of the Nevada Supreme

24

Court’s decision, until November 30, 2010. This does not change the court’s conclusion. Petitioner

25

still waited more than 3 months before he filed the federal petition, and he did not act diligently.

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2
3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reinstate criminal appeal (#13) is
DENIED.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2011.

4
5

_________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-