Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06204/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06204-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT P. SMITH, III, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES ROWLAND, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 97-6204 REC WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

FILED MAY 16, 2005 AND

GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF

APPEAL

[Doc. 101, 102]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On December 8, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

that this action be dismissed for failure to follow a court order. These findings and

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On

February 8, 2005, the court granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of time until March

Case 1:97-cv-06204-REC -WMW Document 103 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

11, 2005, to file objections to the findings and recommendations. No objections were filed.

On May 4, 2005, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed

this case with prejudice.

On May 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In his motion,

Petitioner states that, “the basis for the District Judge’s adoption of the December 8, 2005

[sic] findings and recommendations that my petition be dismissed was my failure to comply

with an apparent order of this Honorable Court, issued February 8, 2005, requiring me to file

objections to said findings and recommendations by March 11, 2005.” Petitioner then

claims that the reason that he did not comply with the February 8th order was that he never

received a copy of it, and discusses at length his problems in receiving his legal mail.

Petitioner proceeds from a false premise. As expressly stated in the court’s findings

and recommendations entered December 8, 2004, the basis for the dismissal of this action

was Petitioner’s repeated refusal to comply with orders of this court requiring him to file a

second amended petition. The fact that Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and

recommendations was not the reason on which the court dismissed this case. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s discussion of his failure to receive legal mail provides no basis for

reconsideration in this case. 

In addition, Petitioner discusses his other lawsuits pending before this court and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and argues that reconsideration is warranted in this case

because issues in this case are now on appeal. The court finds nothing in Petitioner’s

arguments which would form a legitimate basis for Petitioner’s refusal to file a second

amended petition in compliance with the court’s multiple orders instructing him to do. The

court concludes, therefore, that this argument also provides no basis for reconsideration.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing this

case with prejudice and the judgment entered May 4, 2005, is DENIED; and 

Case 1:97-cv-06204-REC -WMW Document 103 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal is GRANTED

and Petitioner is granted an extension of time of ten (10) days after service of this

order within which to file his notice of appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-06204-REC -WMW Document 103 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3