Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00144/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00144-3/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Weldon Hackman,

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-144-PCT-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying Petitioner’s previous Motion for

Reopening the Time to File an Appeal (Doc.34). Petitioner requests an additional sixty days

in order to “give petitioners [sic] request to the Property Officer in charge of incoming legal

mail blogs delivered to inmates at petitioners [sic] previous address to respond to petitioners

[sic] request of results of a search inbetween [sic] May 17, 2006 and July 17, 2006, to verify

whether or not the Arizona Department of Corrections received mail from this Court...”

Petitioner further contends that he requires additional time to “give petitioners [sic] request

for funds withdrawal from petitioners [sic] inmate bank account to be processed by Inmate

Banking/Lewis Complex and sent to the Clerk of the Court for an actual copy of the envelope

returned to the Court containing this Court’s order of May 17, 2006; [sic] to be sent to

petitioner.” Finally, Petitioner asserts that such an extension is necessary in order for him

Case 3:05-cv-00144-SMM Document 35 Filed 01/07/08 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

- 2 -

to “properly draft a Motion of [sic] Reconsideration after receiving the above mentioned

documents.” 

After considering the circumstance and the amount of time that has since passed, the

Court finds that Petitioner has had ample time to achieve all of the aforementioned

“requirements,” but has neglected to do so. Had the Petitioner desired resolution of this

matter by investigating the inmate blogs of May through July 2006, January of 2008 is not

the appropriate time to motion the Court for permission to do so. In fact, Petitioner could

have done so, without the permission of the Court, in 2006. Furthermore, the Court

incorporates by reference its Order of November 26, 2007.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time

to File a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 34).

DATED this 7th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:05-cv-00144-SMM Document 35 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2