Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00687/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00687-10/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RODNEY RUBISH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

M. S. EVANS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-00687 OWW LJO HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. #33]

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO FILE

STATUS REPORT

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO SERVE ORDER ON LITIGATION

COORDINATOR

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 22, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. Since that time,

Petitioner has been granted eight extensions of time over a period of more than one year to file his

traverse. On October 6, 2006, the undersigned granted Petitioner one final extension of time.

Petitioner responded on October 24, 2006, by filing a motion for reconsideration entitled, “Ex parte

to stay the courts granted (30) day enlargement of time until Respondent relinquishes Petitioner’s

legal property so he can answer/traverse Respondent’s reply brief.” Petitioner complains Respondent

is holding his legal property and won’t relinquish it to Petitioner. Petitioner states he cannot

Case 1:05-cv-00687-LJO -GSA Document 34 Filed 11/02/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

complete his traverse without his legal materials.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Petitioner’s arguments provide justification for relieving Petitioner from the order which

provided him with one final extension. According to Petitioner’s statements, he is paralyzed from the

waist down, having sustained damage to his vertebrae and a cut to his spinal cord. Petitioner also

sustained nerve damage to his left eye which resulted in his left eye becoming “stuck to the left side

of his eye socket.” See p. 3, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. As a result, Petitioner states he

has experienced substantial lifestyle adjustments which in turn has caused him to require additional

time to complete his traverse. 

Petitioner also states he has been transferred back and forth between Salinas Valley State

Prison and Pleasant Valley State Prison. He states that during these transfers, his legal property was

confiscated. Petitioner also states the law library closed for a number of weeks because the law

librarian was absent on vacation. During this time, no prisoner was allowed access to the law library.

Further, Petitioner complains he has been charged six times with over-familiarity with staff, and each

time he has proven his innocence. In each instance, he was placed in administrative segregation and

his legal property was confiscated. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner was again placed in administrative

segregation and charged with over-familiarity with staff. As a result, he is again without his legal

property and has no way of completing his traverse. Based on Petitioner’s reasons, he will be granted

an extension of time.

In addition, Petitioner is instructed to show this order to prison authorities. Respondent is

requested to provide assistance in allowing Petitioner reasonable access to his legal materials so that

Petitioner may complete his traverse. Petitioner is ordered to provide a status report within thirty (30)

Case 1:05-cv-00687-LJO -GSA Document 34 Filed 11/02/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

days of the date of service of this order informing the Court whether he has been granted access to

his legal materials, and if not, what efforts he has made in attempting to do so. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED;

2) Petitioner is GRANTED an extension of time of sixty (60) days from the date of service of

this order to file his traverse; 

3) Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a status report within (30) days of the date of service of

this order; and

4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on the litigation

coordinator at Petitioner’s institution as well as Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00687-LJO -GSA Document 34 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3