(HC) Meza v. Pfeiffer, No. 2:2020cv02316 - Document 55 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF
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

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.