Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rodriguez v. Ryan, CV-17-01457-PHX-ROS. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20181227609 Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROSLYN O. SILVER , Senior District Judge . On May 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as untimely. (Doc. 19). Someone claiming to be Petitioner then filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 20). The Court granted that request and directed Petitioner to file his objections by June 29, 2018. (Doc. 21). On June 25, someone claiming to be Petitioner filed a
More

ORDER

On May 11, 2018, Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied as untimely. (Doc. 19). Someone claiming to be Petitioner then filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. (Doc. 20). The Court granted that request and directed Petitioner to file his objections by June 29, 2018. (Doc. 21). On June 25, someone claiming to be Petitioner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration on: `Laches' Ruling." (Doc. 22). That document appeared to be objections to the R&R's conclusion regarding the timeliness of the petition. On July 12, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion requesting another copy of the R&R.

On August 16, 2018, the Court adopted the R&R and denied the petition. The Court treated the "Motion for Reconsideration" as Petitioner's objections to the R&R but concluded the petition was "untimely by approximately twenty years." (Doc. 25 at 1). There was no need no need to delay final judgment because Petitioner had "already filed objections" and any additional objections would be "successive and untimely." (Doc. 25 at 2). Merely out of an abundance of caution, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner another copy of the R&R. The Clerk of Court did so.

On September 20, 2018, Petitioner filed a "Motion to File Objections to R and R Report [sic] and to Re-Open the Case." According to that motion, Petitioner never received the R&R "so he could not file an objection." (Doc. 27 at 1). That same day, Petitioner filed another motion seeking a copy of the R&R. (Doc. 28 at 1).

To make the record as clear as possible, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner yet another copy of the R&R. At present, however, Petitioner has not established a basis for reopening his case. Therefore, the request to reopen the case and to allow Petitioner to file additional objections will be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Leave to File Objection and Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. 27) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Copies (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a copy of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer