(HC) Stout v. Scribner, et al, No. 2:2002cv01276 - Document 64 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. on 10/26/05 ORDERING that Petitioner's 10/17/05 Request for Extension is DENIED. Petitioner's 10/17/05 62 Request for Reconsideration is GRANTED. This court's order filed 10/13/05 59 and Judgment 60 are VACATED. The Findings and Recommendations filed 6/3/05 52 are ADOPTED in full. Petitioner's Application for a writ of habeas corpus 1 is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Stout v. Scribner, et al Doc. 64 Case 2:02-cv-01276-FCD-JFM Document 64 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ALAN WILLIAM STOUT, 10 11 Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1276 FCD JFM P vs. 12 A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, 13 Respondent. 14 15 ORDER / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of 16 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 18 On June 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 20 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. By order filed July 8, 21 2005, petitioner was granted a sixty day extension of time in which to file objections. On 22 September 13, 2005, petitioner was granted until October 3, 2005 in which to file objections. On 23 October 13, this court entered an order observing that no objections had been filed and adopting 24 in full the findings and recommendations. 25 26 On October 17, 2005, petitioner filed two documents. First, petitioner sought relief from default and requested an additional thirty days in which to file his objections. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:02-cv-01276-FCD-JFM Document 64 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 2 of 3 1 Although that request was dated September 30, 2005, the document itself referenced dates as late 2 as October 4, 2005, and the accompanying proof of service was dated October 13, 2005. The 3 second filing was petitioner’s 72 page objections1 to the findings and recommendations. 4 Although the objections were dated October, 2005 (without a specific date), the accompanying 5 proof of service was dated October 13, 2005. As noted above, petitioner’s objections were due 6 October 3, 2005. 7 Because judgment has been entered, this court construes petitioner’s October 17, 8 2005 request for relief as a request for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for writ of 9 habeas corpus without consideration of his objections. In his request, petitioner alleges his filing 10 was delayed because he was transferred to a different prison, resulting in the deprivation of his 11 legal materials for an extended period. In addition, petitioner was unable to access the law 12 library due to prison lockdowns for a portion of the objection period. 13 Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is well taken, and this court’s 14 October 13, 2005 order and the judgment entered thereon will be vacated. Because petitioner has 15 now filed objections, his request for extension to file objections is moot and will be denied. 16 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 17 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 18 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 19 proper analysis. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Petitioner’s October 17, 2005 request for extension is denied; 22 2. Petitioner’s October 17, 2005 request for reconsideration is granted; 23 ///// 24 25 26 1 Petitioner’s objections were served on October 13, 2005, and were therefore untimely by ten days. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner documents are deemed filed as of the date they are delivered to prison officials for mailing). 2 Case 2:02-cv-01276-FCD-JFM 1 2 Document 64 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 3 of 3 3. This court’s order filed October 13, 2005 and the judgment entered thereon are vacated; 3 4. The findings and recommendations filed June 3, 2005 are adopted in full; 4 5. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. 5 DATED:October 26, 2005 6 7 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. FRANK C. DAMRELL JR. United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
