Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01467-6/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

STEVE ROBERT SLOAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-01467 AWI SMS HC 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #18]

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT LEAVE

TO FILE A REPLY TO PETITIONER’S

RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

ORDER STAYING ORDER TO RESPOND

[Doc. #16]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On May 23, 2006, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for violating the statute of limitations be

denied. The District Court adopted the Findings and Recommendation in full and denied

Respondent’s motion on July 24, 2006. On July 27, 2006, the undersigned issued an order directing

Respondent to file an answer to the petition.

On September 22, 2006, Respondent filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. On the same date, Respondent submitted his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner

filed a response to Respondent’s motion on October 10, 2006.

Respondent states she inadvertently failed to file objections to the Findings and

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 10/24/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Recommendation due to clerical error. Respondent states the office paralegal did not receive a copy

of the pleadings because of faulty processing, and further states the operations process is being

reformed to minimize reoccurrences of such clerical errors. Respondent seeks reconsideration of the

order denying her motion based on newly discovered evidence in the form of prison mail logs.

Respondent contends the prison mail logs demonstrate Petitioner submitted his federal petition to

prison authorities for mailing on November 14, 2005. 

Petitioner opposes Respondent’s motion for leave to move for reconsideration. Petitioner

contends Respondent’s assertion of clerical error is implausible. Petitioner further contends

reconsideration should be denied because he submitted his federal petition on the date he signed it, to

wit, October 21, 2005. He contends that although the prison mail logs show his mail was processed

on November 14, 2005, he submitted it to prison authorities on October 21, 2005. He alleges it is the

policy and procedure at his institution that prison staff must witness and verify the signature and date

of documents that are to be mailed prior to sealing them in an envelope. Petitioner apparently implies

that prison staff witnessed and verified his signature and the date of signing of October 21, 2005, at

the time they processed his federal petition for mailing.

The Court finds good cause to excuse Respondent’s clerical error and grant Respondent leave

to move for reconsideration. There is no indication that Respondent willfully disregarded court

deadlines. Clerical errors often occur, for all parties including this Court. Indeed, it is precisely

Petitioner’s point that the Attorney General’s office handles thousands of appellate documents and

pleadings that lends credence to Respondent’s assertion.

Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for leave to file her motion for reconsideration is

GRANTED. The Court will consider the motion for reconsideration filed on September 22, 2006,

and Petitioner’s response thereto filed on October 10, 2006. Respondent is GRANTED fifteen (15)

days from the date of service of this order to file a reply to Petitioner’s response. Further, the order to

respond dated July 27, 2006, is hereby STAYED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01467-AWI -SMS Document 22 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2