Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02679/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02679-2/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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Allace Lee Roy Cornellier, )

)

Petitioner, ) No. CV-05-2679-PHX-PGR (JM)

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Dora Schriro, et al., )

)

Respondents. ) )

On December 20, 2006, Magistrate Judge Marshall entered a Report and

Recommendation stating that the petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be dismissed as

having been untimely filed. The petitioner did not file any objection to the Report

and Recommendation. On February 6, 2007, the Court entered both an order

(doc. #16) that accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(doc. #15) and a judgment (doc. #17) that dismissed the petitioner's Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On February 23, 2007, which was more that

ten days after entry of the order and judgment of dismissal, the petitioner filed a

Petition for Reconsideration (doc. #18) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a Notice

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 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

1

 The Court notes that the docket sheet shows that a copy of the Report and

Recommendation was mailed to the petitioner on December 26, 2006. That copy has not been

returned to the Court as undeliverable.

- 2 -

of Appeal (doc. #19), and a Motion/Request for a Certificate of Appealability (doc.

#20).

The petitioner states in his Petition for Reconsideration that he did not

object to the Report and Recommendation because he never received a copy of

it.1

 Inasmuch as a habeas petitioner has a due process right to receive and

object to a Report and Recommendation, when non-receipt of the Report and

Recommendation is alleged post-judgment by the petitioner, it is the Court's

normal practice to vacate the judgment, have the Clerk's Office re-send the

habeas petitioner a copy of the Report and Recommendation, and to grant the

habeas petitioner an extension of time in which to file an objection to the Report

and Recommendation. The Court cannot do that at this time in this case because

the petitioner's contemporaneous Notice of Appeal has divested the Court of its

jurisdiction to rule on the Petition for Reconsideration. Griggs v. Provident

Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58,103 S.Ct. 400,402 (1982). The Court

notes, however, that it would grant the petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration if

the petitioner were to ask the Ninth Circuit to remand this action to this Court for

the purpose of resolving the merits of the Petition for Reconsideration. See

Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY, 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479

U.S. 987 (1986) ("The proper procedure, once an appeal has been taken, is to

ask the district court whether it wishes to entertain the [Rule 60(b)] motion, or to

grant it, and then move [the Ninth Circuit] court, if appropriate,

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 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 - 3 -

for remand of the case."). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion/Request for a Certificate of

Appealability (doc. #20) is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

DATED this 27th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02679-PGR Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3