Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01319-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN MENDEZ-BAROCIO,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD VALINKEN, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 1:19-cv-01319-SKO (HC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ACCEPT 

LATE REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S 

RESPONSE (Doc. 16)

ORDER CONSTRUING MOTION TO 

ALLOW SUPPLEMENT AS REPLY TO 

ANSWER [Doc. 17]

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 

FILE COMPLETED CONSENT/DECLINE 

FORM

(FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE)

Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On September 20, 2019, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court. (Doc. 1.) On 

September 25, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order directing Respondent to file a response 

and providing Petitioner the option to file a reply. (Doc. 9.) On December 23, 2019, Respondent 

filed a response to the petition. (Doc. 15.) Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the deadline 

to file a reply to the response was January 22, 2020. 

Case 1:19-cv-01319-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/29/20 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

On January 22, 2020,1 Petitioner filed a motion to accept a late reply to the answer, as 

well as a motion entitled “Motion to Allow to Supplement and/or Amend Reply to the 

Government’s Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Docs. 16, 17.) Petitioner’s 

motion to accept a late reply will be denied as moot, since the filing is not untimely. Petitioner’s 

second motion to allow supplement, despite its caption, appears to be the actual reply, insofar as it 

contains Petitioner’s arguments in response to Respondent’s answer. Therefore, the Court will 

construe the motion as Petitioner’s reply. Briefing is now concluded in this matter.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1) Petitioner’s motion to accept late reply is DENIED AS MOOT;

2) Petitioner’s pleading entitled “Motion to Allow to Supplement and/or Amend Reply to 

the Government’s Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” is CONSTRUED 

as Petitioner’s reply to Respondent’s answer; and

3) Respondent is DIRECTED to submit, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service 

of this Order, a completed consent/decline form indicating whether Respondent 

consents or declines to consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Although the motions were filed in this Court on January 27, 2020, they were signed and dated by Petitioner on 

January 22, 2020. Under the mailbox rule, a pro se litigant’s pleading is deemed filed on the date of its submission to 

prison authorities for mailing, as opposed to the date of its receipt by the court clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988). Therefore, the Court deems the motions filed on January 22, 2020, the date Petitioner signed and 

presumably handed his documents to prison authorities for mailing.

Case 1:19-cv-01319-SKO Document 18 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 2