Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mario Flavio Garcia v. Ken Clark

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 13, 2012

MARIO FLAVIO GARCIA, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN CLARK, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case issued an order and findings and recommendations which granted petitioner's motion to substitute the correct respondent in this action, denied petitioner's motion for judicial notice, and recommended that petitioner's March 21, 2011 motion for leave to amend and his June 29, 2011 motion to amend be denied. Petitioner was advised that objections to the findings and recommendations could be filed within twenty-one days. On January 20, 2012, petitioner was granted an extension of time until February 27, 2012 to file his objections. Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. On March 1, 2012, the undersigned issued an order adopting the December 28, 2011 findings and recommendations and denying petitioner's March 21, 2011 motion for leave to amend and his June 29, 2011 motion to amend.

On March 2, 2012, petitioner filed objections to the December 28, 2011 findings and recommendations and a document entitled "Motion for Acceptance of late filing of Objections." In the motion, petitioner explains that he mailed his objections to this court in a timely manner but the post office damaged the document and sent it back to him on approximately February 29, 2012. Petitioner states that he immediately mailed the objections back to this court.*fn1

On March 14, 2012, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's March 1, 2012 order. Therein, petitioner explains that his objections to the December 28, 2011 findings and recommendations were filed late "through no fault of his own." He requests that the March 1, 2012 order be "reversed" and that this court consider his objections to the findings and recommendations. On May 29, 2012, petitioner filed another motion for reconsideration of the March 1, 2012 order.

This court has now considered petitioner's March 2, 2012 objections to the December 28, 2011 findings and recommendations and, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The March 1, 2012 order issued by this court (Dckt. No. 82) is vacated;

2. Petitioner's March 14, 2012 motion for reconsideration (Dckt. No. 91) is denied as unnecessary;

3. Petitioner's May 29, 2012 motion for reconsideration (Dckt. No. 103) is denied as unnecessary;

4. Petitioner's March 2, 2012 motion for acceptance of late filing of objections (Dckt. No. 83) is granted;

5. The findings and recommendations filed December 28, 2011, are adopted in full;

6. Petitioner's March 21, 2011 motion to amend (Doc. No. 53) is denied;

7. Petitioner's June 29, 2011 motion to amend (Doc. No. 70) is denied; and

8. For the reasons set forth in the December 28, 2011 findings and recommendations, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.