Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01068/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01068-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD PHILLIPS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION REGARDING RESPONDENT 

FILINGS

(ECF No. 30)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. 

On January 22, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion asking the Court to order Respondent to 

electronically send to the Warden’s Office at Corcoran State Prison all submissions by 

Respondent to the Court in this case. Petitioner states that it is typical for prisoners to receive 

their legal mail after a delay, whereas mail that comes directly from the Court is delivered much 

faster to the prisoners. Petitioner states that it took twelve (12) calendar days to receive 

Respondent’s motion in the mail. Petitioner argues that if he is delayed in receiving 

Respondent’s filing in this action, then he will lose a portion of his allotted time to respond to 

Respondent’s filing, even up to 40% of the allotted time if there is another twelve (12) day delay.

Although it may be an inconvenience for Petitioner to wait to receive Respondent’s 

filings in the mail, service by mail is an acceptable form of service pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 31 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C). While electronic service is an option pursuant to Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E), it is Respondent’s choice how to effect service, and at this time, the 

Court finds that service by mail is appropriate in this case. In addition, if Petitioner needs more 

time to file his response to Respondent’s filing, he may request an extension of time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to require Respondent 

to send an electronic copy of Respondent’s filings to the warden is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01068-LJO-SAB Document 31 Filed 01/26/15 Page 2 of 2